Having been intrigued ever since reading the post on the Bronteblog a while ago, I finally managed to watch Firelight (starring Sophie Marcaeu and Stephen Dillane) after getting a hold of it from the local library.
Here are some observations:

Outwardly, Firelight resembles Jane Eyre. There’s the governess (Miss Elizabeth Lorier), the master of the house with a past (Charles Godwin), a little girl (Louisa), and a housekeeper (Constance). The interior of the house is dark and drab, resembling Thornfield in many productions of Jane Eyre. A secret that connects all of them is at the heart of this story. However, there are significant differences. Unlike the plain Jane Eyre, Elizabeth is ravishingly beautiful, as evidenced by the household’s reaction to her appearance. She manages to attract the elderly Mr. Godwin as well as Charles’ American friend. As opposed to the morally pure union of Jane and Rochester, Charles and Elizabeth consent to an illicit act with the understanding that their actions will contribute toward the greater good, for their main concern is helping their fathers. Instead of the discovery of Rochester’s previous marriage, the ‘secret’ in Firelight is represented by Louisa, who is Charles and Elizabeth’s daughter. While we don’t learn about Bertha till the first half of Bronte’s novel, we are aware of the existence of Charles’ wife from the very first. Mrs. Godwin, presiding as a comatose invalid entombed in a dark chamber, is not a mystery in the manner of Bertha in Jane Eyre. Elizabeth is aware of her existence from the beginning and Louisa is told that she is not her real mother. Charles also brings Elizabeth to visit his wife soon after the former arrives at his house. The governess falls in love with the master of the house despite her awareness of the obstacle to their union, unlike Jane in Bronte’s novel. While half of Jane Eyre takes place outside Thornfield, the bulk of Firelight takes place within Godwin’s estate.

In contrast to Jane Eyre, who unites with Rochester only after going through a pilgrimage of sorts, including finding strength and integrity within herself, Elizabeth’s happiness is largely dependent on others, namely Charles and Louisa. Though it is evident that Elizabeth is trapped at the beginning of the story (her reaction to the waves and the water changes through the course of the movie, thus symbolizing freedom and release. While she starts of with barely a voluble sound, she manages to contrive a scream by the end), we are not sure if the entrapment is a result of an external or internal conflict. Even though she seeks to release her father from prison, we don’t know if this is the one factor that troubles her before she meets Charles. The film does not show us Elizabeth’s inner world. Furthermore, though the film strives to show Charles and Elizabeth falling in love with each other, I was not really convinced on that score. I would have wanted more character development, a glimpse at a reparetee between the two, an intimacy beyond just the physical. The same can be said of Charles, for we are not sure if he is eager to make love to Elizabeth because he is starved for sex on account of being deprived of it due to his wife’s condition, or because he genuinely loves her. Thus, the inclusion of an intellectual connection is necessary so as to clarify the nature of this relationship in the minds of the viewers.

Even though Jane Eyre arrives in Thornfield with excess emotional baggage, her main purpose is to find something for herself (“I care for myself”, she claims). She strives to work for herself and earn a living. She longs to be independent. When she leaves Rochester, one could argue that she did so for fear of being trapped into an imprudent union with him as he had concealed the existence of his wife from her. Jane finds herself destitute and weary at the price of purchasing her independence. Even by the end of the novel, Bronte’s purpose is to show that Jane can only return to Rochester after she has lived amongst other people, worked for herself, and procured a fortune (even if this fortune is bequeathed to her by someone else). Jane’s succeeds at the price of Rochester’s loss of power, for the latter loses his house and is maimed by the end of the novel. Jane’s journey is one of power, control, and independence primarily for herself.

While hints of women’s freedom are present in Firelight, Elizabeth does not seem to practice what she preaches. Though she implores Louisa to learn her lessons because education is one thing no one can take away from a woman, claiming that women are imprisoned by men and Society, Elizabeth’s liberation at the end of the movie is ambiguous. Her means of procuring happiness, quite frankly, lies in winning Louisa’s love, being a mother to her, and being intimate with Charles. Elizabeth came to teach Louisa not because she wanted to exercise her own mind, but rather, to find and teach her child. We don’t know if Elizabeth’s intellectual development was sharpened by any conversations with Charles that dealt with subjects other than Louisa, his wife, and their love. While Elizabeth is a passionate woman, I am not sure if this passion is directed at anything else besides intimacy with a man and mothering a child. I wonder if such a life is what she wanted for Louisa when she told the latter to learn her lessons. How much use would all Louisa’s learning in the schoolroom be if all she does at the end is marry a man of standing and exercises her motherly instincts by watching her child grow? Elizabeth’s identity as a woman is tied to her duty as a wife (or passionate lover rather) and loving mother, and if this what she wants for Louisa as well, then where is the scope for the reform she suggested when she implored Louisa to ‘learn’?

Although it bursts out in flames intermittently, the fire is easily quenched in Firelight. While it does not shy away from exploration of sexual desire, Firelight lacks depth in its character development. This movie had a lot of potential but fell short of reaching them and I believe this is the result of a poor script. All the actors performed their roles very well, including the little girl (Dominique Belcourt) who played little Louisa. Though Elizabeth is the antidote to the unhappiness of the father and loneliness of the child, she is herself a troubled character. With a wealth of rich elements at hand, Firelight only needed a closer working on the writing to turn it into incandescence.

Welcome!

Hello and Welcome!

I am ellisbell, the author of Pointed Lace. The name Ellis Bell was also the pseudonym of Emily Bronte, one of literature’s foremost novelists. In 1846 Emily and her sisters Charlotte and Anne published their first volume of poetry assuming male identities: Charlotte was Currer Bell and Anne was Acton Bell. I have been fascinated with the Brontes and their works and since studying them in some depth, I have been drawn the world of Women’s Literature, particularly that of the Victorian period. Besides the Brontes, another author whose writings I find intriguing is L.M.Montgomery, a Canadian author best known for the Anne of Green Gables series of novels.

 This blog will serve as a forum for presenting my thoughts on women’s lives in Literature, which includes exploring their various identities from witches to authoresses to angels in the house.

Wuthering Heights snippets

Wuthering Heights 1
Reading Wuthering Heights today:I found these two passages moving:p. 80. This is when Cathy comes to tell Nelly about her dream on the eve of her acceptance for Linton’s hand in marriage.

“This is nothing,” cried she; “I was only going to say that heaven did not seem to be my home; and I broke my heart with weeping to come back to earth; and the angels were so angry that they flung me out, into the middle of the heath on the top of Wuthering Heights; where I woke sobbing for joy. That will do to explain my secret, as well as the other. I’ve no more business to marry Edgar Linton than I have to be in heaven; and if the wicked man in there had not brought Heathcliff so low, I shouldn’t have thought of it. It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff, now; so he shall never know how much I love him; and that, not because he is handsome Nelly, but because he is more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same, and Linton’s is as different as the moonbeam from lightning, or frost from fire.”

In this passage, she says that Heaven is not her home. So even after death, Cathy does not go to Heaven, but instead roams the earth, haunting Heathcliff and Wuthering Heights. I wonder though why it is young Cathy who does that instead of the older Cathy. Isn’t it the older Cathy who is more passionate than the younger Cathy? Or am I wrong? If it is the younger Cathy that is still roaming the earth, there must be something incomplete. Perhaps her childhood was incomplete? But then, I thought Cathy had more freedom in childhood than when she was older. After all, it was when she got older that she got notions of upper class propriety and then had to go against her nature.

The concept of Heaven: is Heaven found on Earth? I have wondered about this question myself. If we all have to control our passions and seek salvation just so we have the hope of going to Heaven in the after-life, then what is point of striving for Heaven on this earthy? Is there a Heaven for us on this earth? Is Heaven our final Home? What is Home? I read somewhere that your home is with your soulmate…and hence, Cathy’s was with Heathcliff, even if she was dead and he was living, she could not find a home in Heaven. So was EB referring to mythology or evangelical religion…or is she merging the two and saying how in essence, Faith is the one and the same whichever way you look at it? Is EB saying that our Heaven belongs on Earth if our soulmate is on earth? Does EB’s concept of religion falter here…or is she taking a radical standpoint? I would think more the latter. Why is EB interested in such notions as an Earthly Heaven? How about death and redemption according to EB? I believe that EB is starting to talk about a new form of religion: love as religion. Wherever there is true love, there is Heaven, there is Home.

Cathy says her home is not with Linton, just as she does not belong in Heaven.

I like Cathy’s use of metaphors in the last line. I believe that moonbeam refers to Linton and lightning to Heathcliff, and similarly, that frost refers to Linton and fire to Heathcliff. Shows how the two men are polar opposites. Yet, Cathy marries Linton, so showing that she is going COMPLETELY against her nature.

Cathy proclaims that they are soulmates here.

p. 82. This is when Cathy continues to talk about how she cannot ever be separated from Heathcliff even in marriage.

“My great miseries in this world have been Heathcliff’s miseries, and I watched and felt each from the beginning; my great thought in living is himself. If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and if all else remained, and I were annihilated, the Universe would turn to a mighty stranger. I should not seem a part of it. My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods. Time will change it, I’m well aware, as winter changes the trees-my love for Heathcliff is like the eternal rocks beneath-a source of little visible delight but necessary. Nelly, I am Heathcliff-he’s always, always on my mind-not as pleasure, anymore than I am always a pleasure to myself-but as my own being-so don’t talk of our separation again-it is impracticable; and”

This is also a very powerful passage. Cathy’s feelings for Heathcliff are of haunting intensity. This kind of love goes beyond death, and beyond life. It transcends our notions of any kind of earthly love. I am convinced that EB is forming her own religion here. This is a new idea of what we think about love. Cathy forgets herself as an ‘individual’, but merges her identity with that of Heathcliff. Is that a good thing? I am not sure. I do value independence….I believe Jane Eyre is different from Cathy in this respect. I don’t recall her saying that she was a part of Rochester as Cathy was a part of Heathcliff. Instead, Jane asserts that Rochester is her ‘equal’, NOT herself.
Again, Cathy reiterates that she and Heathcliff are soulmates.

I like Cathy’s comparison of love to nature, as this connected to the wild moor setting.

The phrase “I am Heathcliff” from a more feminist view point could be interpreted like saying how Cathy (being female) leaves her own identity for the sake of the man she loves. So is this saying that a woman in love takes the identity of her beloved? Meaning is her own nature going to be repressed because of her falling in love with a man? Is the man going to dominate her always? Why isn’t it “Heathcliff is me?”

Dependence Vs. Independence

Bronte: Dependence Vs Independence

Ever since I read JE when I was about 9 or 10 years old, I’ve always looked to Jane as a character who was so independent. Since I’ve felt so alone for most of my life, I’ve always been able to relate to Jane. When I’d get waves of loneliness and despair that everyone was leaving me and if I felt so friendless, I’d think of Jane and some of her dialogues, where she talked about how she needed to feel independent and be comfortable with that first. I think she said once that the “more friendless and alone” she was, the stronger she felt. When she runs away from Rochester, she says that she cares about herself more than anyone else. If Jane can survive, I believe I can too. So I am going to think of Jane and her life and I really think I should read JE now instead since I need to be inspired and comforted at this time of intense loneliness that I am facing over here. On the other hand, there is Wuthering Heights that I thought I loved a while ago because I thought I could relate to it more then. I was comforted by the fact that BOTH Cathy and Heathcliff were torment. So if Cathy was MEANT for Heathcliff, then even if she was dead, she would haunt him and He would not be happy without her even if he was alive. This story is one of DEPENDENCE whereas JE is one of INDEPENDENCE. Hence, I believe that Charlotte Bronte intended to write about Independent whereas EB wrote one of Dependence. These two themse are in opposition to each other but I think it could mirror events or personal experiences in the lives of the aurthors themselves. I need to read up on the biographies of these two authors, but it is my theory that perhaps Charlotte was struggling to find meaning in her own Independence after a broken heart. Maybe she wanted her own inpiration for life after love and that promted her to create Jane Eyre. Maybe Charlotte, like me, would turn to Jane whenever she sought meaning or strength during times of loneliness or friendlessness. Jane is a symbol of Independence. However, in contrast, Emily sought for Dependence. I am not sure if Emily was attached to a man at any time in her life, but she could also have intended dependence on not just a spouse (i.e. man), but could also have meant family members (Emily was very attached to her family members I believe). Maybe Emily realized that one just COULD NOT be happy being ALONE all their lives (like she was) , and so she spins this tales of not just wild and passionate love of such intensity, but also one that her psyche sought in order to satisfy her own feelings of loneliness and neediness. Both of them were lonely. However, they took opposite routes to solving their problems. Emily found comfort in the fact that being so dependent on another, as Heathcliff was on Cathy and vice versa, would be a solution to loneliness. The fact that Cathy haunts Heathcliff to her meant that even though H was ALONE in the world, he HAD Cathy in someway, and so he could go on living. With Charlotte, Independence was the key to survival. As long as Jane found means within herself to be independent and free, she could survive.

Who am I? The Many faces of Women’s Identity in Victorian Literature

The portrayal of women in Victorian novels raises questions about the search for their identity, and as a consequence, serves as a vehicle for the projection of the authors varied opinions on the rights and position of women in Victorian Society. In this essay, my purpose is to analyze five heroines in Victorian Literature and compare and contrast how each form their respective identies.I am my beloved: Catherine Linton (Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights)
For Catherine, who she is as an individual depends on how much she is a part of her soulmate, Heathcliff. As long as she is free to be with Heathcliff, she could be herself, but the moment she goes against her nature, i.e. try to “better” her self by marrying Linton, and thereby break her relationship with Heathcliff, she loses a part of herself. After her marriage to Linton, Cathy takes on another persona. She is no longer the girl who would roam wild and free in the moors. Instead, she is confined to the suffocating grandure and Victorian sense of propriety in Thrushcross Grange. Cathy even acknowledges to Nelly that she and Heathcliff were one when she says “I am Heathcliff”. Hence, in this case, the woman takes the identity of her beloved.I am his equal: Jane Eyre (Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre)
For Jane, her identity as an intelligent, independent woman is resolved through ties with Edward Rochester, her imposing employer and Master of Thornfield. Although Jane does seek her own independence (and thereby her identity as a single woman), in the end, she finds she needs Rochester to be complete. Firstly, there is the telepathic relationship that she shares with Rochester, which I believe is a strong indicator (from the author) that as long as that supernatural connection exists between Jane and Rochester, they could not be entirely happy without each other. They need each other to be whole because they are “equals” and complement each other. Jane needs Rochester during moments of her insecurity (when Rochester is more controlling of her), and by the end of the story Rochester needs Jane when he is (phsycially) found wanting (thus Jane controls Rochester). This symbiotic sort of relationship is differnet from that of Cathy and Heathcliff in that this is a relationship of equals, where only each will do for the other, but each keeps their own identies. Jane is NOT Rochester in the manner as Cathy affirms she IS Heathcliff.

I am my husband’s wife: Dorothea Brooke (George Eliot’s Middlemarch)
For Dorothea, finding her place in the world and fulfilling her purpose in life is to marry an influencial man, and thus, she marries Casaubon, although there is no passion or love between the two of them. Dorothea, having been brought up in a wealthy and lavish life, identifes her purpose in life early on. She wishes to make a change in her society and to help people below her. She also has a thirst for knowledge and is intent on learning more about the world around her. She believes that marriage to Casaubon will help her attain all her goals. To an extent, marriage to Casaubon does give her some liberty to help people around her, such as helping Lydgate. However, it is only after her marriage that she realizes Casaubon’s duplicity and weakness of character, along with finding out who she was as a person and what she wants in a marriage. Though she does fall in love with Will Ladislaw, even after her marriage to him, her powers as woman fulfilling her aims in life remain obscure, as she is only able to excercise them through her husband, a powerful politician.

I am my father’s daughter: Margaret Hale (Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South)
Margaret, being the daugther of a cleric, was used to having the influence of her father lead the way she conducted affairs in her own life. Being very close to her father, she is also prone to holding some of her true feelings back, as when she bravely consents to leave Helstone even though her heart broke the whole time. In Helstone, Margaret was an important personality and she was able to influence people around her by means of her position. Thus, even when she moves to Milton with her family, she still carries that mentality (the fact that she was “superior” to the other workers). Even though her father resigned from the Church of England and only chose, through his own free will, to teach the workers, it gave Margaret an upper hand, in that she knew that while her father had a choice to do a noble deed such as educating workers when he could have led a more comfortable life, the workers in Milton are deprived of such a choice. Thus Margaret also feels that she has to live up to her father’s standard of judgement and leadership. While this prompts her to visit workers and to try and change them herself, she also learns a lot from them, which later allows her to overcome class boundaries, most importantly, reconciling her relationship with John Thornton, a man far below her in terms of the social scale.

I am Myself: Tess Durbeyfield (Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the d’Urbervilles)
Tess is the most radical of all of these heroines in that who she is as a woman is NOT merged with the identity of any man. When Angel compares her to Greek Goddesses like Demeter or Artemis, she immediately retorts, “call me Tess”. She wants Angel to accept her for who she is, despite doubts revolving around her “purity”. She stands her ground when the Pastor refuses to baptise Sorrow, and she herself baptises her own child, even though such a practise is foreign. She tells Angel the truth about her past hoping that he will accept as she forgives him. Even when her parents doubt her character, she leaves her home in search of her own independence without Angel. She loved Angel but did not think of him as “herself” or her “equal” as the heriones above did.

Jane Eyre as Cinderella

The novel definitly had elements of a fairy tale, complete with a poor young girl marrying her “Prince” in the end and living happily ever after. As for it resembling Cinderella, there are many clues:
1. Just as Cinderella was an orphan, so was Jane
2. The Reeds are Jane’s “other” family, complete with the evil stepmother and evil siblings (including two “wicked” step-sisters)
3. Bessie, Miss Temple, and Helen (to an extent) play the role of Fairy Godmothers at differnt points in Jane’s life. Bessie is the only kind person in Gateshead, as Miss Temple was the benevolent teacher at Lowood that Jane turned to for support and obtained encouragement and wisdom. As well, Helen taught Jane about the “finer, higher” aspirations in one’s life, and showed her patience, endurance, and humility. While Helen’s quite fortitude was a contrast to Jane’s tempestous nature, Helen’s presence is necessary in the improvement of Jane’s character.
4. Prince Charming: Rochester (um..yeah…not your average, conventional Prince LOL): While Rochester could have chosen any other woman, including a woman from the upper class (such as Blanche or even any of the Miss Reeds), he chose poor, plain, Jane.
5. The Ball: Jane romances with Rochester while she stays as governess in Thornfield (and all these scenes constitute the “Ball” scene in Cindrella), and there is even a Ball at Rochester’s house where he is all the more attentive to Blache while Jane watches in the midst of despair. Eventually Rochester “sees” and “falls in love” with Jane and “leaves” Blanche (this is when Jane returns after the death of Mrs Reed), and he even proposes to her. However, just when they are about to marry, Jane runs away from him (just like Cinderella runs away from the Prince on the stroke of Midnight).
6. The Prince finds Cinderella: Rochester does in some sense “find” her again, because they have the telepathic connection between them that would not leave them, and hence they cling to each other regardless of distance. Jane cannot get enough of Rochester, and it is to such an extent that she compared other people (such as St. John) to him, and decided that only Rochester would complete her. In the end, the “calling” gets so intense that it forces her to seek Rochester (in contrast to the Prince seeking Cinderella of HIS own accord, Rochester “calls” out to her and Jane does the “seeking”).
7. This is my BEST IDEA so far: The Shoe in Cinderella is analogous to the telepathy in JE!!! Because ONLY Jane and Rochester can have that telepathy JUST as the shoe that the Prince finds on the night of the Ball can ONLY fit Cinderalla and NOT anyone else.

Different Portrayals of Love in Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre

In Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte has endeavoured to portray love in different forms, in an attempt to find her own definition for love.

From Rochester’s perspective, dependence and control is love. From his entrapment of Bertha and subsequent treatment of her, to his wishing to possess Jane despite the latter’s oppositions, and his legal (marriage) concerns, his form of showing love (before Bertha’s “burning down the house”) involves control and force.

However, after Jane’s departure from Thornfied, and Bertha’s death, he is increasingly despondent and becomes more humble while realiizing his mistakes. His becoming handicapped in the end adds to the fact that he is physically as well as emotionally dependent on Jane. Hence, in this case, his love is one of dependence.

From Jane perspective, her love is based on dependence, pity, dominance, and most impotantly, action. When she first meets Rochester in Thornfied and falls in love with him, she becomes emotionally involved with him. She needs Rochester, and so was dependent on him, for her emotional balance. She was lonely and isolated in Thornfield and she wanted to interact with an expanded mind and an intelligent person who also balanced her emotional needs and thus Rochester complements her.
When Rochester becomes handicapped and Thornfield burns down, Jane returns to him, but her love for him now could be interpreted as having arisen out of pity for his situation, and a desire to exert her dominance, specially now that she was indeed an independent heiress.

A novel definition for love is “love as action“. This definition emphasises love as something active, NOT passive. Jane’s quote in Chapter 12 “who blames me? Many no doubt; and I shall be called discontented. I could not help it: the restless was in my nature; it agiatated me to pain sometimes. ….” reiterates how she yearned for excitement and action in her life. This need was fulfilled by Rochester. He represents the “action” she seeks, because after meeting him, her mind was engaged and occupied and her thirst for action does not resume until afte her life settles into a routine while she teaches in the school patronized by Rosamond.

St John also fulfills the notion of “love as action” except that his kind of “action” is differnet from that of Jane and Rochester’s. St John seeks to physically do “work” as a missionary in India, and he wants Jane to complement him in his mission, that is, work like him. His love for Jane is based on how much she is useful in his quest and fulfilling his mission. However, that kind of love or “action” does not suit Jane because it does not mesh with her emotional, intellectual, and physical needs.

Arising from the “love as action”, which introduces the “religion as action” concept presumed by St John, it serves as a necessary logical transition to compare and contrast with the the “love as religion” theme in Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights. However, In the interest of time (and energy), I intend to strive to make this other interesting discourse the subject of a future essay.

Jane Eyre: Identity in Isolation

I think Jane did socialize more with the Rivers than she did at Thornfield because the Rivers might seem more her “type”. However, Rochester was her “type” too in terms of intellect and emotional balance. Jane is unique because we cannot assign her a single specific niche or identity. In this sense, she is isolated. She is different from everyone else, and through the course of the book, we see her in different settings that highlights her individuality and distinguishe her from everyone else. Even by the end of the book, we can’t assign her to a particular class. In the first chapter, we know that Jane is poised between different “worlds”, or different ways of life because she is sitting on the windowsill facing the world outside while behind her is Gateshead’s torment. She is in two places at once, symbolically. Though Lowood’s strict religious rules oppressed her, she refused to yield to them, and maintained her sense of imagination and independence of mind. In Thornfield, although she is a governess, a class which is next to being that of a slave, her intellectual potential and accomplishments place her in a much higher class, even that above people such as the Ingrams. Rochester is drawn to her precisely because she is that much different from anyone else, an eclectic mix of sorts that defies classification. In Moor House, although she makes friends with and grows to love the Rivers sisters, their religious beliefs don’t exactly mesh with her own. She is much more passionate than any of them. Reading that segment, even I could sense the fire in Jane’s nature that contrasts with the placid calm of the Rivers sisters. So basically, she is isolated because is in a class of her own.

I somehow did not get the impression that they socialized much in Thornfield. I mean besides that visit by the Ingrams, we don’t really know how much they socialized or if they socialized much at all. Rochester was used to doing so before he moved to Thornfied after the arrival of Jane, but it is not evident if he socialized much afterwards. Being a member of the gentry, it is possible that he could have attended neighborhood balls. However, it was nearly impossible for Jane to socialize much because of her position as governess. She would not have fitted in either the lower class or the upper class. Jane could be herself, i.e. Jane Eyre, in a place that is like her, in other words, a place that is isolated.

When I read the whole Thornfield episode in the book, I always got the impression that the place was isolated, and the absence of mention of neighbors or balls (in contrast to Austen’s novels), just gave me the sense that Jane (if not Rochester) felt isolated there. I also think that feeling “isolated” is also a part of Jane’s nature. If you look at Chapter 12, from the paragraph that starts with the quote “Anyone may blame me who likes when I add further……”, and the next paragraph that starts with the quote “Who blames me? Many no doubt; and I shall be called to …” and the rest of that page talks about how Jane felt so restless in Thornfield, she wanted more “action” and less “tranquility”.

To me, tranquility is synonymous with the isolated nature of Thornfield and Jane’s position as governess. She yearned for more. So did Rochester, he wanted more than what women in his class possessed. He found his equal in Jane. This is why I would say that because of Thornfield’s physically isolated postion, and also the absence (by Bronte) of mention of much socialization, that Jane and Rochester’s isolation in Thornfield drew them together. Even if you say that people came in and out of Thornfield, both Rochester and Jane must have felt “isolated”, i.e. alone, because they were both characters who could not really be classified into “one” type, more so in the case of Jane.

Was Jane truly independent?

Was Jane really Independent as she is believed to be?
Here are my thoughts:
I believe Jane was most indepedent when she was at Gateshead. By independent, I mean that she was truly able to survive knowing that no one in the world loved her, that she was truly alone .
When she moved to Lowood, she had the love, support, and encouragement from Helen and Miss Temple, so knowing that these people cared about her and that she loved them in return, she was partly dependent on them for her happiness.
When she moved to Thornfield, she oversaw Adele’s education, and before she met Rochester, also won Adele’s affections. She knew that Adele was fond of her and entertained her, so she knew she had someone to whom she meant something.
It was after her becoming intimately connected with Rochester, however, that she learns what it is to truly give herself to someone, and be so loved in return. Rochester (overlooking his skeleton in his closet), did give the impression that he did love her intensly and passionatley, satisfiying her need for acceptance and emotional attachement. Only Rochester could complement her emotional and intellectual needs, and she grows dependent on him for her completion and happiness.
At Moor House, Diana and Mary dote on her, and to an extent, so does St John, in the sense that he is particulary attentive to her, singling her out over his sisters, and choosing her to be his companion on his mission. Knowing that she had the the love and support of the Rivers sisters gave Jane the sense of being loved, a sense of belonging, and security that she’s always searched for. She is happier when she knows that people loved her, and that she was able to love them in return to her heart’s content. In this sense, I believe that her happiness was dependent on how much she had other people’s love. She was thus dependent on others.
I think then that the only time Jane is truly independent is before she leaves for Lowood. The scene in the Red Room shows how much she is willing to persevere despite having no one who cared about her, and whom she could love. Is CB saying that only children can survive like this, as in the example with young Jane in Gateshead? Is CB saying that as we get older, all of us NEED someone to care for and love, and be loved in return? Is THIS the Universal truth that is the crux of the novel? Perhaps DEPENDENCE rather than INDEPENDENCE (which is generally believed to be the central theme of JE) is the message the novel is trying to portray. If being truly happy means being dependent on someone/something for love, then it is impossible to be happy otherwise. We NEED other people’s love, regardless of whether they are family, friends, or romantic partners.
Jane was able to go on after leaving Thornfield because she knew someone loved her. She knew what it was to be accepted for who she was. She knew what it was to give all her love to someone. In a sense, she’s privileged…because she’s experienced and lived through something many others could only wish for. Rochester was not “lost” to her, she’ll always have him. She knew that only she could complement him and no one else, so this fact could have comforted her too. Her happiness depended on her belief in others’s affections for her, for without this belief, it is my firm conviction that it will be impossible for anyone to endure so much entirely on their own.

On Trollope’s He Knew He Was Right

The one thing I absolutly loved about this story was how it portryed the status of Victorian women through a variety of charcters. First there was Emily (wife of Louis and mother of Little Louis) whose husband accuses her of cheating on him with her Godfather!! I mean how dumb is that??? But the whole point of the movie is that while the whole world was on Emily’s side, her huband believed he was RIGHT! He actually drives himself crazy because he was so jealous of Emily’s Godfather!!! Emily was so faithful to her husband the whole time and continued loving him even when he banished her to the country and suspected her of evils she never committed. He even kidnaps their son, and yet Emily continues to sympathize with him. However, she refuses to change her interaction with her Godfather. While her husband warned her to not see him (as in the Godfather) anymore, she still continues to see him because she believed that she did no wrong. She thought that if she stopped seeing him, other people might actually suspect her of having done something shameful. Hence she continues to try and be “herself” even when her husband threatened to get her out of her house. I do think she was a strong character for standing up for herself and not giving into to her husband’s foolish commands. Even till the end, she knew SHE was right: that she was NOT guilty of anything, that she was willing to forgive her husband for his mistakes.

Next there is Dorothy and her wealthy Aunt. Although Dorothy well-read and sensible woman, her family’s economical situation did not allow her much Independence. She was dependent on her wealthy aunt to provide for her. Dorothy, being a “plain” and “homely” girl, did not hope she’d attract a good man with moderat means (since men were primarily fortune hunters), and when such a fortune hunter (after learning of Dorothy’s being able to inherit a small fortune from her wealthy aunt) proposes marraige to her, she turns him down because she knew that he wanted to marry her only for her fortune. She also says that men (in those days) could start from scratch and make their fortune but women had very little prospects other than marrying a man of some means, or living a life of drudgery like a governess.

Anyways, I found Emily and Dorothy’s story to be quite interesting…the others were not so outstanding…but they did bring up issues relating to postiion of women in different classes, as well as different time periods.

All in all, I found this Trolllope story quite engaging. Its certainly raised a lot of questions and helped me see why Trollope is regarded one of the prominent Victorian authors. The irony is that he is relatively unheard of in some circles. When most people (me included) refer to Victorian Fiction, the names that come uip are usually Dickens, Bronte, Gaskell, and Hardy…and very rarely any Trollope.hmm I wonder why….
In any case, I am defintly more willing to try and read some of his books now. He certainly does give another dimension to the world of Victorian Britain.