Pajiba

Wow, I hate to come off as an elitist lit major, but....your review epitomizes why reading books should not be a race. The reason the dialogue goes on forever is because that's where the main ideas of the novel come out and where the complexity of the characters emerge. I've heard the book criticized for many things but never because the characters were boring and one-dimensional.

Wow! Marra! Listen, Jane Eyre is not one of my favourite books by a long shot, but you really don't get it. One of the reasons the Brontes' books are so interesting (note: I don't necessarily say enjoyable) is that they explored the uglier side of relationships as well as really strong themes such as obssession and how close hate is to love. The sisters were talented, intelligent, passionate women who lived in a virtual prison of a rectory in Yorkshire at a time when women were supposed to be either pious breeders or pious spinsters. Yes, there are huge gaping plot points and far too much use of coincidence, but they had almost no real life experiences (they lived almost vicariously through their loser brother) and yet they wove these stories out of what they imagined would happen if two people became desperately, passionately attached to each other. And let's face it (although Ranylt will strongly disagree with me here), they practically invented the "nice girl attracted to an asshole and all the bad decisions she makes as a result" storyline. For all these reasons, I think you sell Jane Eyre short.

Sometimes I feel like a bad feminist for it, but I will always adore the Bronte sisters. I read their work, and I know that I should feel indignation at the men who these women fall for - narcissistic messes that Heathcliff and Mr. Rochester are... but then I remember PaddyDog's point - you can't really read these with a 21st century eye and appreciate them. You have to take them in context - and when you do, the depth of the writing just blossoms.

I've probably read Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights 20 ties, respectively, and they get richer every time for me - I guess I can relate to being a smart, strong-willed woman who falls hard for the hot mess.

This is a great book, my wife is a fan of Charlotte Bronte’s work. I’m just behind Sophia, I’ve read 57 books, this is so exciting it’s going to be a close race.

So, which movie version of Jane Eyre do you recommend, Marra? I've seriously seen like 4 of them. The latest one on PBS was pretty good. Suggestions?

Tammy: I would even go further and say that Jane Eyre and other Bronte works are feminist novels. Jane rejects the opportunity to marry St. John who would be a perfectly respectable husband who would "look after her" and chooses to follow her heart instead (when I refer to Rochester as an asshole, I mena it in the sense that he is gruff and ill-mannered, not that he treats her badly, because he doesn't). In that she was making a very independent choice for the time. Similarly Cathy defies all convention by loving Heathcliff and her marriage to Edgar Linton demonstrates how much of herself a woman has to compromise in order to be a good wife married to a good man. Villette is chock full of plot points that explore gender roles. Agnes Grey shows how venal woman are who succumb to wealth and comfort on a marriage instead of true partnership.

I didn't like Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights. The Bronte sisters just didn't write the kind of stories that interested me. Some classics aren't for everyone.

Mini-diversion: Movies that were better than the book.

FRANKENSTEIN Mary Shelley couldn't write worth shit, but she had a great concept.

legib:

If you can ever get this crowd to agree on what 100 books to include on the list, I'm in.

Unless one of those books is the Bible: The Bible for me is a collection of badly-written blog posts from religious lunatics and the occasional well-doer. I really feel that if "God" had wanted there to be a book to guide us, (s)he would have given us something a bit better edited.

Had to comment for the first time on this site, since this book is my namesake. My mother read it when she was in fifth grade (she had a messed up childhood), and wanted a daughter named Jane ever since.

I know that I was biased into loving this book from the start, but I'm so glad to realize that other people do too. The idiots that were my classmates in public school all hated this when we read it because it was "boring."

Wow, I'm pretty sure I find this review of Jane Eyre offensive. While it's obvious that Eyre isn't the most scholarly of books, it at least deserves more than three paragraphs banged out in 15 minutes.

legib I want so badly to say that I'd be in, but I am currently buried in graduate school and sadly cannot read anything not on a course syllabus. If you don't get it rolling until summer 2010, though, I'm definitely in.

What, no discussion of the whole Madwoman-in-the-Attic subtext?

legib
I'm in. That list (either one) looks pretty diverse.

"Can't go with the list on the right (The Reader's list) since I refuse to have anything to do with Ayn Rand."
Cause Ayn Rand is bad but L. Ron Hubbard is totally fine right?

Irina:

Nope. L. Ron Hubbard's work is schlocky science fiction. Ayn Rand's work is ego-facsist propoganda.

legib:

Now that second list is the only one I've ever seen that was brave enough to exclude Ulysses. For that alone, it deserves some attention. I can never make up my mind as to whether or not Ulysses is the most amazing thing ever written or Joyce's big practical joke.

Agree with everyone who finds this review to be insultingly superficial. You can do better than this!!

Irina:

Never let lists intimidate you. As you can see from the three lists legib provided, there are many variations on the "100 best books" theme and just because you haven't read one group's idea of what those books are doesn't make you any less of a serious reader.

I read this book in college, and even with a feminist perspective, and I still didn't like it. I am not a spoiled reader of only modern books - I like all kinds of lit. But I didn't like this one because it is plotted a bit haphazardly once she gets out of the school (which was horrible but interesting reading). Once she gets to Rochester's house, I was ready to be done with it. I wanted to spank that little girl, disliked Rochester immensely and I wanted the madwoman to loom larger and show up sooner than she did. SHE was interesting to me, far more so than Jane, but she is really only a device. I liked the gothic tone, but I don't really understand why this book is required reading when there are SO many books with good points to them. Maybe to the Brontes, being a governess was interesting, and falling in love with a rich guy with a crazy wife was exciting. But not me, so much. It is fun to view this book thru feminist and economic perspectives. But it ain't so much fun to just slog thru for the heck of it. And as much as it dragged in the middle, the ending is just BANG! over. So I found it a little uneven, as well. Not the worst book (I thought Wuthering Heights completely nonsensical, and an uphill climb to get thru) but not the best reading for feminism or gothic lit. In fact, I think Jane Eyre is more interesting in the things it doesn't say, than what it actually says, and maybe that's why it keeps ending up on those reading lists. *shrug*

Paddy-Dog, that was a hilarious description of the bible!

Chickaboom:

I agree the mad woman is incredibly interesting. Perhaps that's why Daphne DuMaurier in Rebecca, her "updated" version of Jane Eyre, made her the much more compelling character.

Also, it might interest you to know that many neurologists believe that Mrs. Rochester had Huntington's disease based on the description of her illness in the book. There has been a lot ofresearch trying to determine if someone Bronte encountered had HD and therefore she borrowed the symptomatology from that.

Jen- I was an English Major as well and managed to get through all of my schooling without ever having to read one Charles Dickens novel. How's that for crazy?

Interesting, Paddy-Dog. And Rebecca rocked! :)

legib:

I don't mean to imply that it's awful. It's very difficult, but I find it fascinating and entertaining. BUT, it is work.

I always thought Jane Eyre's primary contribution to society was giving a lot of terribly dull and difficult women an awfully high opinion of themselves. I feel like if Jane lived today, she'd be one of those stone-bitch office managers who goes home and curls up with a trashy romance novel. Her character didn't resonate with me at all.

I like that she chose, and she really did choose, Rochester over St. John, the "troll" over the handsome man, and the one she pursued (well, I mean she went back to Thornfield to find him) instead of the one that pursued her.

Also that in the end she has to help him, and be the stronger person. :)

Your idea: tell us where to start.

Gatsby it is. The blue light beckons.

Legib, can I suggest Dostoievsky at some point? Seems to be missing from the list, or I'm going blind and missed it. I'm a "Crime and Punishment" sort of gal but most people say "The Karamazov Brothers". You choose.

I'm reading Gatsby for my book club next month. I'm really excited to revisit it.

I can't believe a review of Jane Eyre is what's finally brought me out of lurkdom. It's probably my favorite book of all time. I read it at least once a year--and every time I get something different out of it depending on what's going on in my life.

For those of you who liked it, might I recommend The Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys? It's a kid of prequel to Jane Eyre, told from the point of view of the first Mrs Rochester--the madwoman in the attic.

Erm, isn't it a green light?

AM:

I defer to you. It's been a while for me.

FYI, meant more people that want to read more, not people who ask for my opinion. I blame these crazy kids and their Internet.

You know whatever one thinks of the review, I am really happy that a book review on Pajiba received this many comments.

Ruckus - I'm right there with you. This is, for me, the original romance novel. I've read it countless times and am still breathless when Rochester declares his love.

I think it has resonated with me so much because Jane is just so likable.

Oh, and for whoever was talking about Ulysses up there, put down the Joyce! Just, put it down. No one will think less of you. If you must, read The Dead. Vastly superior.

Ditto to the love for Wide Sargasso Sea. It made me appreciate (not love, but appreciate) Jane Eyre.

I do not get the romance aspect behind Wuthering Heights. That book seems like a mild form of torture porn.

I love that it's a book review that has caused me to de-lurk after so long, but I really found this review offensive. I guess I'm reiterating what most have already said, but, while it's fine if you dislike a book, it's really better form to explain why, and in a reasoned, intelligent manner.

Also, I must follow what others have said and recommend Jean Rhys' superb Wide Sargasso Sea. I just finished reading it about a week ago, and it was profoundly moving and thematically powerful.

That whole gypsy thing...all the times when Rochester tries to tease out some kind of amorous feelings from Jane...he's married already, and I think his near-marriage to Jane is cruel. When she goes back to him, I wanted to slap them both. Eventually it would come out and then Jane would be ruined, both socially and vocationally (no "good" family would have her supervising their children). He does not love her. He loves the Rochester that Jane thinks she loves, if that makes sense. I don't think the ending is romantic - I'm all for romance - I think the ending is unfortunate, as Jane is supposed to be so smart and canny, but who does she settle for? A person who would humiliate her publicly - someone in Rochester's society was bound to remember that he'd been married once before, don't you think? And I'm sure I would have liked it more if it turned into a revenge story, and Jane torments Rochester til the end of his days.

The thing about Wide Sargasso Sea...I want to know what Bronte envisioned for Bertha's character, assuming she did. Jean Rhys' book, tho inventive, is like reading these Austen knock-offs. I'm sure they're entertaining, but I'd rather just read Ms. Austen.

And I'm sure I would have liked it more if it turned into a revenge story, and Jane torments Rochester til the end of his days.

Now that would be a lot more interesting and a lot less depressing than the actual ending.

I might be biased here, but I just spent 9 months researching and analyzing the hell out of Jane Eyre for my college thesis as I am an English major. And I'm not particulary understanding what you mean by "poorly written." How's this for you?

"It is in vain to say human beings ought to be satisfied with tranquillity: they must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it. Millions are condemned to a stiller doom than mine, and millions are in silent revolt against their lot. Nobody knows how many rebellions besides political rebellions ferment in the masses of life which people earth. Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts, as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex."

If that isn't feminism, and Jane taking a stand and actually making Rochester suffer before she goes back to him isn't awesome, and the whole Bertha is mad and from Jamaica and represents the "Other" isn't the precursor to a ton of postcolonial criticism and texts, then call me crazy. Charlotte Bronte wasn't writing in 2009. She wrote this in the 1840s and had to publish under an ambiguously gendered name so that people would actually buy her book. The Bronte sisters questioned all of the norms for women of lierature at the time. Read Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own if you are more interested.

Sorry for the rant, I just love the book and can't help lecturing about it every other day.

If you guys are looking for a good list of classics to tackle, just use the AP College Board list of authors covered on the AP Lit exam. I decided to tackle the ones on that list I had never read (and am embarrassed that I've never read since, um, my entire career is deeply involved with such things). Started about two years ago. Every now and then I get horribly burned out and have to read stupid fluffy fluff and true crime and stuff. Then I'm ok again. I'm ready to get back into the classics.

Here you go, have fun:
http://www.baysidess.com/ENG4U/AP%20English%20Past%20Exam%20Selections.pdf

As for this review, I was torn. On the one hand, I sort of enjoyed the brevity, but by the time I was done reading it, I wondered if the reviewer even read it. Or read it carefully. I don't know, they certainly aren't one-dimensional characters. But if you're used to 20th and 21th century literature, yeah, it's going to take a bit of getting used to. Definitely.

In Marra's defense, we Cannonball readers don't write these reviews specifically for Pajiba. They're for our blogs just to show we've read the books-when Dustin feels the urge, he chooses one to post.

And Yawn, making such an obnoxious blanket statement on Marra based on one of her opinions is incredibly rude. That sentence makes me sound all mommy, but I don't care. It was fucking rude.

I agree with both PaddyDog and Julie. It's fair game to critique reviews and I'm very happy when any book review starts a discussion, but I think we can all agree to keep it respectful and not just outright rude and insulting to the reviewer.

I read Wuthering Heights back in junior high, for pleasure (yeah, I was a weird kid) and finished it, but it was a monumental struggle. I just didn't feel anything for Cathy and Heathcliff. I wonder, if I read it now, would I like it any better? I never got around to Jane Eyre. I think WH scared me off from Jane. I'll have to give it a try. As to Wide Sargosso Sea, I saw the movie, and didn't care for it one way or the other.I didn't realize there was a book as source material. I might give that novel a try, too.

Mini-dirv: Thank You for Smoking. I liked the book a lot, but I think the movie tightened up and streamlined the plot. Besides, I just like Aaron Eckhart.

Holy shit people, chill. It's just an old, boring book - at least Marra called a spade a spade. If only I had the guts to write a review/paper like that when I was still an English major.

I mean, what were you really expecting? A 15-page dissertation citing the stuffy opinions of dead white guys experts ad nauseum? She wrote her opinion, clearly, refreshingly, and forthrightly. Is all this hate just because she found a "classic" overwrought and overrated? I think more than anything this review reflects a shift in the assessment/evaluation of literary style towards more nontraditional criteria. Is that really worth such a shitstorm of indignant outrage?

Quick Marra, to the MurderTank! You can sleep on that cot over there until this hubbub all dies down! Here's a change of clothes - you wouldn't want to be recogni...

NEVERMIND THAT CAMERA! IT'S SIMPLY A SAFETY PRECAUTION!

...

I'll be in the whiskey fountain.

Land Snark, how can you agree with a review about a book you've never read? That makes about as much sense as fucking for virginity.

Jane Eyre just happens to hold to the honor of being my favorite book of all time. I love the writing style of Charlotte Bronte and seriously have never been able to get enough of books that featured the lives of English governesses. Using words like "stupid," "boring," and "ridiculous" to describe one of the classics just shows me that either Marra isn't old enough to appreciate the book, isn't bright enough to understand the book, or just took her own advice and just watched the movie instead of actually sitting down with this brilliant work. The review, its brevity, and its lack of sophistication just made me angry and sad.

And you won't like me when I'm angry (and sad).

Might I suggest each of you pick up a cheap copy of the novel and form your own opinions? It's a quick read (I read it in one night the first time I read it at age 15), and it's well worth the time away from your weekend TV time-wasting schedule.

And if you find yourself intrigued by the mind behind the work, I also suggest the fictional novel The Crimes of Charlotte Bronte by James Tully.

And if you DO find Jane Eyre to be as fascinating a read as I believe you will, try Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier.

I hereby propose Marra as Pajiba's official book critic.

And if you don't like her reviews then you read the book and form your own opinion about them. Sheesh.

Seconded, Sofi. At least she's good at provoking discussion. Now, who would win in a cage match, Marra or someone more like Ranylt or one of these vocal Bronte-lovers?

Two critics enter. One critic leaves!

Now, they've been dulled by repeated imitations, and the changes in women's lives make Jane and Elizabeth seem like silly little twits.

What. *slaps you with a glove* Explain yourself, or else it's pistols at dawn, sir/madam ScienceGeek.

(Agree with the rest of your post btw, this just struck me as... what?)

Nay Sofi, fight...in the jello! Shadows, grab your cameras. Literature criticism is about to get...dirty!

*loooong low whistle* Damn! Marra if nothing else you HAVE to be commended for getting so much interaction about this novel! Once again: Damn!

The thing with all the critics for and against the novel, people we are obviously going to have to call it a truce and say we agree to disagree.

Marra may have been succinct (my word of the day, don't laugh) but she expressed the views some of us have about the book, including myself.

She may have analysed it a 21st century perspective, but that's what's fun about criticism - it's from different eras, different countries and different views and many times granting one new ideas.

After all, it IS how the novel Wide Sargasso Sea came about and I liked that perspective of the Mr. Rochester's hidden wife a heck of a lot more than Bronte's. But that's just me. I like to mind people business and get the inside story.

@ Sciencegeek: very well. But let's wait an hour after lunch, wouldn't want to get upset stomachs and all. ;)

Elizabeth and Jane as drinking buddies would be awesome! I can just imagine them complaining about stupid men being... stupid. Lizzy would complain about Wickham being a cad and/or Darcy being so intolerably stiff, and Jane would just one-up her by telling her how HER man was secretly married to someone else and she only found out when she was already standing at the altar - for which Lizzy would buy her another drink because damn, that's harsh.
But would Jane drink? Hmm...

This so-called review is offensive to anyone with the slightest shred of critical insight.