2QSQ #5 – 10:2:23

PART 1: PREPARING FOR DISCUSSION

SOURCE IDEAS:

“Do you think because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless? —You think wrong! — I have just as much soul as you, — and full as much heart! And if God had gifted me with some beauty, and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you. I am, not talking to you now through the medium of custom, conventionalities, nor even mortal flesh: it is my spirit that addresses your spirit; just as both had passed through the grave, and we stood at Gods feet, equal, — as we are!” (338).

“As regards the author’s chief object, however, it is a failure — that namely, of making a plain, odd woman, destitute of all the conventional features of feminine attraction, interesting in our sight. We deny that he has succeeded in this. Jane Eyre, in spite of some good things about her, is a being totally uncongenial to our feelings from beginning to end”.(592) — Rigby’s Quarterly Review, 1848.

SYNTHESIZING COMMENT/ANALYSIS:

With these two passages, I am thinking about how we might look into the public perception of Jane as both this beacon of feminist thinking of her time, full of questions and revolutionary thinking regarding social/class structures of England, and then this idea of her “unnatural” unearthly” connotations throughout the novel. This quote from chapter 23 is so poignant that I can’t pass it by without acknowledging it and just the sheer power it brings through the page. Not only is this an example of one of her moments where she truly speaks her mind, forgoing this ‘doctrine of endurance’ and is unashamedly bold, but think of the social conventions she alludes to that a poor, plain governess could speak in such a way to a wealthy, high-standing man. Looking at the argument Rigby makes in this review, they acknowledge how popular this book is — but immediately jump into naming all the reasons why it is dangerous. I am thinking of how this brings in our discussion of monster theory and the idea that there is such a lack of categorization implied within Jane and why these reviewers would feel she is just totally not relatable — shunned, so to speak, from the ‘conventional features of feminine attraction”. She is poor, an orphan, a woman — this is what is supposed to define her. Yet, she is the rightful inheritor of decent wealth, intelligent, and caught the attention of a conventionally superior man. She subverts so many of these boxes that gave the Victorian culture its order, and perhaps this could play into further discussion of Brontë’s choices to craft the novel in such a way where the interior of a person cannot fit in with this constructed society.

QUESTION:

Why do we think the public responded so greatly to Jane’s character and perhaps found these moments of rebellious thinking and redefining femininity so relatable, yet reviewers think her so unappealing? What might this say about this genre’s ability to generate a desire to live through this mysterious, thrilling, adventurous but not truly wishing to participate in its reality?