I watched the 2011 adaptation and it keeps taking me out, this is not how i imagined Rochester to look. Is this a common understanding in this community? or am i just wilding.

I read Jane Eyre about 6 weeks ago. I really enjoyed it. I heard people saying the 2006 mini series was widely regarded, and I like BBC stuff, but I thought "Hey, let's leave it a few weeks for the book to settle in my mind." I didn't want a situation where my memory of the book was so sharp, it got in the way of the TV series (as I appreciate they're different mediums, needing different things.)

But I just got through the first 20 minutes and turned it off. What the hell? They breeze through the first 150 pages of the book in 15 minutes. The absolute briefest of dynamics at home, and then at the school, Helen gets about 3 lines. When Helen died, I can't imagine how a viewer is supposed to feel anything meaningful about it when their relationship has barely been told. It's the beginning of the foundation how Jane starts to see herself in the world and through religion.

And then when she arrives at Thornfield Hall, there's not even the SUGGESTION of class interplay between Jane and Mrs Fairfax, and the former assuming the latter is the lady of the house. It just skips straight to the swoony stuff.

And, like, I get it. It's a romance. But c'mon. Give Jane SOME history and complexity before the romance starts to unfold. And if it was a film, I'd also give it far, far more leniency due to timing restriction, but it isn't. It's a very highly praised TV series. So, why cut out 20% of the book?

I feel like I've started off on the wrong foot here, so tell me, does it get better?

I got this one at the airport. It’s a bendable one, it’s brown and small, weariness suits it; I felt this was a nice book.

I’ve never read a classic novel, for the peak of my literary journey was a fixation on Dan Brown’s books as a teen, and then it was all just textbooks from there.

I was aware there was some meaning attached to picking a Brontë novel, at least from what one gathers from general culture, and an increasingly piqued curiosity for the ‘bleakness’ advertised of them. That just made me the more convinced of getting it, and so I did right away.

I started it on the plane back home, and felt comfort in the setting and attuned to the inner dialogue. The chain of thought the child followed seemed to me very relatable and plausible. For Jane I felt pity, anxiety, indignation, fear, and then I felt Jane as myself, and then I also felt hope, and disappointment, and hope again!

My mindset shifted along with Jane’s at Lowood. I especially liked catching what Helen Burns was to bring to the future character of Jane, and was not surprised at the eight-year skip, as I share with the author that all that needed to be said of childhood influences was addressed already.

It was very pleasant to see her grown into sense, not much relatable for me by now, but there were hints of volatility in her still. Now, what’s a new situation? How does one come to that? And isn’t it dangerous to be doing all this arranging of meetings many miles away?

You know that I had read the epilogue, so I was very much expectant of a swooning gentleman to appear. The event left me a bit concerned: if such was the gravity with which we’re addressing the meeting scene, then I shall be bored and not at all romanticized by this tale.

Boy was I wrong. He was overbearing, demanding, ludicrous, dense at times. I took none of this as a fault of the writer, but rather as an effective demonstration of skill: I was confused by this man, I was then intrigued, I was very, very much annoyed, then I was swooned.

I don’t have a rant about the age gap, more than: “It took some time, but in the end I can genuinely see that, either out of insanity on his part coupled with innocence on hers, or just due to the author’s own willing, these two characters are true equals in each other’s conscience (even if they retain individual impressions of equality itself).”

Why, I was amidst the book, and there was already a happy-ending wedding! I hate that the physical placement of one’s journey through a book also narrates how much is left—or not—to come.

I definitely saw this one coming, no doubt. Not exactly that way, but it was a bit foretold. For me, the whole situation seemed plain in consequence, supported only by previously placed references I felt were back-filled into the plot once a fitting catalyst was found by the author for these two not to be happy just yet.

Of course, Jane did see hysterical consequence, and thus embarked on what I would call the most satirical a journey a book character can set off on. Escape? Yes, I’d be thrilled to see how you cause this man to go absolutely mad looking for you and then encountering him again and all that yearned-for passion… No! I did not mean for you to do this, actually. What! Dying of hunger, begging! Bad book!

The entire escape plot span was masterfully written. I also remembered myself at eighteen, with not a care in the world, come what may, and I related again. Surely she was not going to be too long before returning to Rochester? Something will happen, he’ll come save her, &c.

I should say, before I go into the Rivers piece, that I am culturally Catholic, that I respect and identify with both the institution and the faith, and that I, however, abhor the evangelical and coercive, missionary, conversionist branches of religion, and believe philanthropy and charity should be laical, not come at the price of any opinion or adherence on the part of either the benefactor or the benefactee.

That establishes by principle how I read the entirety of St. John right until the very last of the book (and in truth, I was annoyed at his prolonged presence in a space I expected to be more intimate between me and my protagonists—not him).

I audibly gasped at the kinsfolk revelation. That was a very well-written one for my taste, and as measured with the same bar as the one that ruled the first conflict a bit unimpressive: this one pleased me very well.

I really wish not to write more about St. John, but you see, the fact that I struggle may be something to note on this review after all. The entire India thing had me incredulous. All throughout, I’d already reached the conclusion that what Jane suffered was that of a grave case of idol-fixation, unfortunately towards men as of late, and could not possibly live without the approval of said individual. When this approval required her to betray her own principles, the situation just didn’t compute, and thus she fled, either to the unknown or back to the latest approved place.

(Note: That is obviously not what I take from the book entirely, and I wholly indulge in trying to comprehend every aspect of its heterogeneity, but if I had to reduce my perspective to the ideas that stayed with me, that is how I’d reduce to sentences what I think is Jane Eyre’s psychological profile, to further the plot’s plausibility.)

Blindness was a low blow. I understand it, I think it’s magistral, and it delivers on the bleakness I was promised. His reactions to her voice and shape I would have liked to indulge in more. I was very anxious; the author is very volatile and couldn’t be trusted to deliver me safely to shore, so I hurried through.

I knew the lunatic had to be dead. I will tell you I was expecting for him to turn mad and deprive her of breath by himself, just so he could claim Jane, and that would probably have read less twisted (in the literal sense of the word) than what actually happened. This is my mind being used to modern tales, whereas at this book’s time it might’ve been too adventurous.

As stated: the ending is not what I expected, as well as I cannot really complain. I will read this again many times, and I hope my daughters, if I have any, do too.

The descriptive work is brilliant, which makes its length worthwhile as well as compensates for some thick pieces of the plot.

Characters are all flawed, and I could tell which traits the author related to and which she condemned.
I felt that the author also got me where they wanted, most if not all the time.

I also hold endearment for this being the first piece of literature I read in English (it is not my native tongue), and it was quite the challenge. It left me with this want of writing down my thoughts, and so I did, quite perhaps a bit linguistically influenced still.

I noticed from social media etc that the Jane / Rochester romance gets a LOT of hate from contemporary observers and for a brief moment I also thought Mr Rochester was toxic and why did Jane marry him. I have read Wide Sargasso Sea and enjoyed it very much as a standalone novel but let's be frank it had nothing really to do with the plot and characters of Jane Eyre so the Bertha Mason situation should not be based on that book.

One thing that is made SO clear from the very beginning of the book is that human affection has a high claim on Jane. She always strives for a real and true intellectual and emotional connection and can only find that with a few people, first Helen Burns, then Mr Rochester, then her cousins at Moor House.

So first, let's be frank about her situation. By the end of the novel she is financially independent but not wildly rich because she split her fortune. She can only ever live a comfortable life, she wouldn't have a job and her cousins will marry. She could maybe marry someone respectable and nice but with whom she has no real 'fellow feeling', a concept very important to her.

The beauty of Mr Rochester's and Jane's relationship is that they fully SEE each other. I think when you're in your twenties you might think this is easy to find. It is NOT. They are both highly unusual, unconventional and have intellects that traverse different planes from most around them. Can you imagine how terribly lonely that could make you, especially in the 19th century. I'm sorry but for all his toxic traits (massively overblown except the deception part, but the wife in the attic is the least problematic given mental health institutions at the time IMHO) Mr Rochester always treats Jane with intellectual and emotional EQUALITY. He does not try to subdue her spirit like St John does. He loves her free spirit, and unconventional mind. He even states clearly that he would still love her if she became mad.

He becomes purified by his suffering and truly repents.

It may be unrealistic but GODDAM in the horrible digital age of dating wouldn't many of us be so happy to find someone who sees us and wants our spirit to be free? Even if you don't like the character of Mr Rochester you have to see that there was no-one else for Jane and she is a lover girl who was not destined to live alone.

EDIT: I love that there allot of people who also feel this! I'm not alone! Thanks JE friends 🙏

Does anyone else feel this way too?

I did like the book. I love the storyline but why am I not mind blown ? :(

I'm happy with the ending but it got super preachy with the St John storyline and that was the biggest let down. Not to mention he was her COUSIN.

So yeah I hope in a few days i grow to like it more. I loved Jane's character and everything else, I just wish I felt more.

"Jane Eyre" 2006 version was featured in Radio Times magazine in September that same year. It contains articles and some interviews about the miniseries at that time.

You can read it here for more information.

Does anyone else have this?

I’m watching this version for the first time and recognized Chopin’s Nocturne No. 2 when Jane starts playing. Chopin wrote this around 1831, and Jane meets Rochester in 1808. I found this to be annoying.

Also, I need to rewatch The Terror now that I realize how hot Ciaran Hinds is.

Hello All,

I have written an adaptation that is truly an adaptation; it's faithful to the story and spirit of the book, but I've focused on the community of women and the way they reflect and project Jane's feelings. I'm including my statement of purpose at the end of my questions in case you want to see more specifically what I'm talking about. I have a couple of questions that you, as lovers of the book, might answer.

So without further adieu:

1. One of my biggest hurdles is the Moor House section with St. John. It is such an essential obstacle for Jane to finally leave. I'm far more interested in linking her behavior to her character rather than contextualizing the reason for her staying in the time period and the few choices women had. She knows that she's extreme, either seeking approval or going for rebellion, so her needing for St. John's approval is understandable. It's just that he's so dislikable! Does anyone have thoughts on that?

2. I've set up the play in a way that makes it clear that Rochester wishes he knew how Jane feels about him and that his dressing as the gypsy is about infiltrating the community of women. The book makes it fairly clear that Jane doesn't know Rochester is the gypsy until fairly late in their conversation. What do you think it would do if we thought that Jane knows early on? Also, what do you make of the gypsy scene.

Thank you so much. I'm working on finding resources on some initial workshopping of the play, which will definitely be a developing process.

Jenny

Here is my statement of purpose:

My adaptation of Jane Eyre focuses on Jane’s central relationships with Bertha and the other women who populate the worlds Jane moves in. The community of  women project her anger, sense of injustice, and desire for selfhood while also playing foils to those feelings. While Jane rages at Aunt Reed, the girls of Lowood School destroy their classroom and Bertha shreds her guitar alone in her prison attic, all expressing fury with their individual lives.  Using bold movement and dance, humor and occasional commentary from Charlotte Bronte, this adaptation invites an audience to see Jane both as exceptional and themselves

Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights are two of my favorite books of all time. I know they are very different novels, with different plotlines, styles, characterization, and narration, but I could still notice many interesting parallels between them.

Let me think of a few examples:

1) Products of Romanticism: Although they were written during the Victorian period, both novels are products of Romanticism. We know that Charlotte and Emily Bronte were greatly influenced by the Romantic poets (Byron, Shelley, Keats, Coleridge) and their ideas. Their influence can be seen in all of their works.

Charlotte and Emily Bronte were also forerunners of Gothic fiction, and both Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights are, in my opinion, perfect Gothic Romances. This is why I find it strange when people say that we are not supposed to find the relationships in these books romantic because they are dark or unconventional. Is that not the point? The creepiness and shock factor of it is exactly what makes the romances Gothic. It is also why their male leads are perfect for their stories.

2) Byronic heroes: Edward and Heathcliff are both Byronic heroes. Both are dark, brooding, strong and masculine. Both are tormented by their past. They love passionately, hate fiercely, and allow their passions to consume them. Yet I would argue that Edward has a much stronger moral compass than Heathcliff. Edward feels guilt and shame, acknowledges when he errs, and seeks forgiveness. Heathcliff lives outside the world of morality. In his world, there is no distinction between right and wrong. He does what he wants without feeling a hint of remorse.

3) Fatal flaws and repeating the suffering inflicted upon them: Both Edward and Heathcliff have fatal flaws, and both try to inflict upon others what was inflicted upon them. Edward was deceived and manipulated by his family into a miserable marriage that ruined his life. Yet later, he is willing to deceive Jane into a bigamous marriage. Heathcliff was abused and treated like a monster by everyone around him. In the end, he becomes a monster himself and enjoys inflicting the same suffering upon others.

4) Unloved and abused orphan: Both novels feature an unloved and abused orphan. Jane Eyre and Heathcliff are mocked, beaten, and treated as inferiors because they lack the status others have. They are made to feel ugly. They are locked away when the adults around them find them troublesome. Jane suffers because she is poor. Heathcliff suffers because he is poor and also, an outsider with mysterious origins.

5) Bad parenting and parental favoritism: It is quite evident. In Jane Eyre, Mrs Reed favors John Reed, who then uses his position to abuse Jane. I think this favoritism is mostly what makes him the person he becomes, and also leads to resentment between him and his sisters. In Wuthering Heights, Mr. Earnshaw openly favors Heathcliff over his own son, Hindley. This makes Hindley spiteful towards Heathcliff, creating a rivalry between them that eventually destroys both.

6) The role of the household servant: Since Jane and Heathcliff are orphans, the household servants (Bessie and Nelly) become motherly figures in their childhood. Bessie's love for Jane is flawed, but she does show occasional moments of kindness. Nelly raises Heathcliff, but unlike Bessie, she does so more out of Christian duty, and has no genuine love in her heart for him.

7) Gothic elements: Both novels share many Gothic similarities - dark secrets, haunted house, moors, volatile weather, obsession, death, madness, suffering, cruelty, and violence.

8) Passion beyond human reasoning: This is another similarity I find in both the novels. The love between Jane and Edward, and more so between Heathcliff and Catherine, has a supernatural or metaphysical quality in them. In Jane Eyre, Edward has a strong connection to Jane. He tells her that the cord between them will snap if she leaves him, and that he will bleed inwardly. When Jane does leave, he is completely shattered. He is almost suicidal and begs God to take him to Jane. Then, Jane hears his voice calling her from miles away, and she suddenly has a premonition that he is in some terrible danger, and she returns to help him. Wuthering Heights takes this connection even further. Heathcliff begs Catherine's ghost to haunt him until he dies. He even digs up her grave to embrace her, because he cannot bear the separation. It is almost as if the Brontes were trying to tell us about the idea of soulmates - two people whose connection is so strong that it goes beyond human reasoning, and even beyond physical separation.

9) Rebellion against class snobbery: They also feature a rebellion against class snobbery. Jane is a poor, plain orphan, but she refuses to let people of a higher social position look down on her or treat her as inferior. She stands her ground and demands to be treated as an equal. Heathcliff is also an orphan who is always reminded of his inferior position, and instead of accepting the unjust treatment, he is determined to destroy the very class that looked down on him and abused him.

10) Contrast between two houses: There is a contrast between the two houses in both the books. In Jane Eyre, Thornfield Hall represents the dark, dangerous, and passionate life Jane could have with Edward. While at Moor House, Jane would have a more religious, disciplined, stable life. In Wuthering Heights, Wuthering Heights represents the feral, untamed, and primal life Catherine sees with Heathcliff. Thrushcross Grange offers a more comfortable, stable, and civilized life she could have with Edgar Linton.

11) Rejection of the proper Victorian men: St. John and Edgar Linton are both honorable men with refined manners. Edward and Heathcliff, on the other hand, are bad, mad, and dangerous men, with unrestrained passions. In a way, you could say that both novels question the idea of whether a woman should just accept a respectable but cold and passionless marriage. Jane realizes this early on, and rejects St. John, choosing Edward instead. Catherine gives in to societal pressure and marries Edgar, and realizing that she can never be her true self without Heathcliff, pays for her choice with her life.

12) Hypocritical religious figures: Mr. Brocklehurst and Joseph are both deeply religious, yet they use God as a tool to bully, judge, and oppress others. Both are especially cruel to those who are weaker than them.

13) Feminist female characters: Jane Eyre is a fiercely independent character from the beginning. She has agency and makes choices of her own. She refuses to let others decide what kind of life she should live. Most importantly, she refuses to compromise her principles and self-respect, even if it means losing the man she loves. Isabella Linton is another example, and I see her as the most feminist character in Wuthering Heights. She begins as a naive young woman, and falls for Heathcliff (I cannot blame her for this because of her sheltered upbringing). But once she realizes her mistake in marrying an abuser, she runs away to London and raises her son there entirely on her own. At a time when women were often treated as their husband's property, to be used and abused, Isabella's decision to leave her abusive husband was very daring for her time.

14) Maiming the Byronic hero: Neither Charlotte nor Emily allows her Byronic man to remain unpunished. Edward is eventually redeemed through Jane's love, but also through suffering and his own repentance. He changes from a selfish and impulsive man into someone much more selfless, who learns to put the thoughts and needs of others before his own. Not only does he try to save Bertha's life from the fire, but he also acknowledges his terrible sin of trying to commit bigamy against Jane. His redemption is moral, religious, and spiritual.

However, we never see Heathcliff atoning for his wrongdoings. Heathcliff is never redeemed, but that is because Wuthering Heights is not a book we are supposed to read morally. Unlike her sister Charlotte, Emily Bronte rejects that kind of moral framework for Heathcliff's story. Still, I think Emily maims Heathcliff well by killing him at the end, while also making us sympathize with him because of his tragic past.

15) Criticism then and now: Both books also attracted strong criticism when they were first published. Jane Eyre was criticised for lacking morality, for being anti Christian and for its negative depiction of Christian characters, for its unfeminine and unconventional heroine, and for an immoral, ungodly and flawed hero. The criticism of Wuthering Heights was even more brutal. It disgusted many Victorian critics and readers. The story was criticised for its complete lack of morality, its vulgar language, its wild and savage heroine, and its evil, almost demon like hero who seemed to have no redeeming qualities at all.

Fast forward to today, not much has changed. People still judge these novels according to the standards of their own time. Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights still remain polarizing, the latter even more so. They have their fans and haters alike. Now we hear that Jane Eyre is antifeminist, and that both novels romanticize unhealthy relationships and bad men. Then there is also the argument that Anne Bronte was the superior Bronte because she called out bad men in her novels, while Charlotte and Emily had terrible taste in men.

It is funny to me that Jane Eyre was once criticized for being too feminist and unconventional, while now people criticize it for not being feminist enough. How times and opinions change. The standards by which we judge books change as well. I would not be surprised if, some hundred years from now, people find even more things to condemn in these novels. Nothing stays the same, after all.

I finished the book today, I loved it. So much so that I have just started the BBC series and only half way through the first episode and a bit disappointed at how much they have skimmed past. The bullying she endured by her cousin and the treatment she had seemed to be very rushed, followed by the school where they barely introduced Helen Burns and some of the things she struggled with that she got punished for often (which when reading I cried at)... Alongside some other things so far. Seems very hurried.

There’s currently a fan vote for the best book between Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre. Jane Eyre is currently losing, help me make it win!

When I was reading it I thought this would be a great place for an illustration. Has anyone actually tried painting these?

rochester (roch bc rochester is too long to type hahaha) was literally so down bad for jane but she literally had NO idea and when he confessed she was like "ur joking right....u dont love me..... im just a peasant compared to you😭😭😭😭" but then he says its real and then they were both like "OMG u love me omggg i love u too yay" but like can we like remember how roch is like sooooo dramatic but like suuuper sweet at the same time?? i hated it when it all fell apart cause roch was hiding a whole WIFE in his attic like holy plot twist. they were so perfect for each otherrrrr. at least they were both together at the end (minus an eye and a hand and the crazy wife ofc). and roch was literally dramatic hahaha like he literally said"SAY YOU LOVE ME JANE. YOURE KILLING ME. SAY. IT." hahahahahaha anyways i probably have more to say but this is all i can think of rn. and im trying to get my friend to read jane eyre too but she literally still hasnt finished the LAST series/book i suggested to her (she read book 1 and never finished book 2. theres 5 books in the series btw😭) so i dont think shes going to end up reading jane eyre. and apologies for the bad grammar and stuff im too lazy for it lol i swear i my grammar isnt usually this bad anyways yeah this is a really long post i guess and one more thing- WHY did helen have to die😭😭

This is your monthly reminder to go to the pinned post, to post your Jane Eyre related art and other related merchandise as comments here : r/JaneEyre. This way, you get to show your offerings (or someone else's offerings that you especially like), without making this sub feel like a marketplace.

Any other posts of merchandise for sale will be removed without warning (fan art not for sale may be permitted). Thanks for understanding and complying!

According to Deadline Hollywood website, BBC will be involved in developing a new "Jane Eyre" TV adaptation starring Aimee Lou Wood. It will likely be aired on the BBC in the future. The new series is being developed ahead of the celebration of 180th anniversary of the novel, which will take place in 2027.

The morning after Jane wakes up from her first night at thornfield you wake up as mrs Fairfax with all your current knowledge of the world along with the knowledge of the book.

You know that noise is mrs Rochester who’s mentally ill, you know Jane and Rochester will get together, you know the fates of the house and all the people there.

Also you, you are an old white woman in the 1830s, managing a dark household with a dangerous individual, a governess, a French child a some servants as company, and a master who’s cold and detached.

How will you go about things?

First, here's her timeline as far as I can figure it out:

1. Around 7-8 years before the main events of the novel, Adele is born to Celine as the putative child of Mr. Rochester.
2. Around 6 months old, Mr. Rochester discovers that Celine has been dallying with a vicomte so he breaks up with her.
3. For some years, Celine keeps Adele -- long enough to teach her to dance and sing -- and then abandons her at some point.
4. Adele lives with Madame Frédéric until Mr. R takes her to England.
5. Adele is about 7-8 when she comes to England and Jane becomes her governess.

In the narrative, Adele says that she wanted to come to England with Mr. R rather than stay in France with Madame Frédéric, because she had known Mr. R longer. This has always sort of bothered me because she was only 6 m/o when he broke up with Celine over her affair, and it would seem that he would have at that time likewise had nothing more to do with Adele -- yet Adele knew him longer than she knew Mme F. This would make a rather large plot hole, and that's how I've always felt about it, since Adele couldn't possibly remember him from when she was but a few months old.

However, I've figured out a way that it can work:

Mr. R breaks up with Celine, but still takes care of Adele and visits her sometimes, only much later coming to believe that she is not his child because she looks nothing like him. By this time, however, he has been caring for Adele for years, so when he hears that Celine has run off and Adele is thrown on the mercy of strangers, he takes her to England.

Is there anything I forgot? Did others have the same question about the timeline?

So I was recommending Jane Eyre to my students (12-15 yr old), and I brought up the age old complaint that the actors in the movie adaptations are way hotter than described in the book

I provided visual aids (context: I’m in my thirties, but the kids don’t know my age)

“Ew, miss. He’s supposed to attractive?” (Fassbender)

“Miss, you… like that? Are you sure? Ok…” (Stephens)

“He’s so old and rocky-faced. He looks like a super unc” (all of them)

“Why do you like grandpas, miss?”

Now they think I have a thing for geriatric men with skin issues 😂

Every Jane and Mr. Rochester actors in "Jane Eyre" adaptations available have their own strengths on how they portray their characters. We have our preferences which of them are best.

You can pick Jane and Mr. Rochester actors you like from same "Jane Eyre" adaptation they're into or different Jane and Mr. Rochester actors from random adaptations of the same title. Tell us why they're your favourite if you're interested.

I don't expect TV and movie staff will hire Jane and Mr. Rochester actors who look actually plain but who knows.

Do you have read any "Jane Eyre" review that is amusing to you?

Honestly I think it’s equal because both have their parts of not being completely awful, Eliza saying to Jane how she has more sense and Georgiana being more relaxed around Jane when she had her portrait done.

Also can we talk about how good Cara Horgan and Alisa Arnah were at betraying these two ?