Image courtesy of rarebookschool.org
So, my English class started Jane Eyre this week. I know it's pretty standard high school reading (or was that just the case at my high school?), but it's the first time for me reading it! To be honest, I've been reluctant to read it because after reading Wide Sargasso Sea, I decided that Mr. Rochester was a tool, end of story. I also disagreed with some literary criticism that Ms. Bronte made. Nevertheless, when I saw the book on my syllabus, I got pretty excited. I mean, it is a classic. It's almost required reading for life.
Okay, maybe that's a little much... But, still. It's a pretty important book according to a lot of literary critics, authors, etc.... (And, frankly, who knows better what a good book is than a writer?)
So, I've just finished the point where Jane leaves Lowood for Thornfield. Class discussion today focused a lot on the settings for the book (Gateshead, Lowood, the forests, weather, etc... basic symbolism shiz), Jane's personality, and how her personality contrasted with Helen Burns.
Helen Burns, for those of you who haven't read the book, is basically the Perfect Christian Girl. I don't mean that in a negative way, like Saved! (Mandy Moore, anybody...?), but more like charitable, turning the other cheek, and believing that, in The End, all will work itself out in the eyes of the Lord.
My class didn't really like Helen Burns. This was a bummer because I did. They said she was docile, annoying, represented the patriarchy, and was essentially antifeminist. They said that her fate (no spoilers!) was a sign that Bronte believed her to be inferior to Jane.
But, was she? I mean, there were a few things I didn't quite agree with in my classmates' points; like, how Helen Burns was an antifeminist character, and that she was inferior to Jane.
I was trying to think of how patriarchal Lowood supposedly was. Now, I'm not an "expert feminist," or anything. I'd like to think of myself as one, although I know that I have a lot of learning to do before I start debating anyone about it. But, from what I understand about feminism, it's about equality. It's about being your best self. And while I do agree that 19th century/Victorian society was oppressive to women (like, dear christ, I'm so glad I wasn't born then), how can Lowood be so patriarchal if there are no men?
Looking into that thought, here were my main points:
- There were essentially no men at Lowood. I mean, there was Mr. Brocklehurst, and he was technically in charge, but he was gone so often that the school was run mostly by the teachers and Miss Temple. I feel like there was a lot of solidarity that went on there between the students and the teachers. And, yes, there was strict discipline - children were expected to be little adults, and completely "tame" (for lack of a better word) - but they were educated, and there was certainly a bond that existed between at least some teachers and students.
- Continuing the above point about Lowood - Yes, it was also oppressive because of its religious nature. But can't feminism and religion coexist? (Maybe that was too grand of a statement. Let me try again.) Lowood might have been very religious, and oppressive in that manner, but how does the Christian sentiment about turning the other cheek and accepting punishment translate into antifeminism? This rule applied to men as well as women, I believe - at least, I can't imagine Calvinists (or whatever Lowood's religion was) encouraging their men to be passionate. It was after the Reformation! Feelings sucked! It wasn't like they were Puritans or anything, but passion was definitely discouraged.
Image Courtesy of CollegeHumor
That brings me to my next point about passion and Jane and Helen... I think a lot of Jane Eyre's formative years is a discussion about "nature vs. nurture." I don't think this theory was formally around when Bronte was writing Jane Eyre, but I think that a lot of childrearing back then had to do with it. (I mean, when you think of how children were squashed down into dreary beings.) Jane is a naturally passionate child. She feels injustice, she rages, she has a sharp tongue and holds grudges. She also loves completely. She is considered a "wild" child by many, whereas Helen is thought of as a placid girl. Helen's philosophies on life are heavily drawn from Christian teachings, such as "turning the other cheek." She doesn't get as enraged as Jane does when faced with "injustice" - rather, she works to fix the situation, or make it livable. Is this really such deplorable (or, as one girl in my class said, "boring") behavior?
Helen reminds me of Beth, from Little Women:
Helen reminds me of Beth, from Little Women:
“There are many Beths in the world, shy and quiet, sitting in corners till needed, and living for others so cheerfully that no one sees the sacrifices till the little cricket on the hearth stops chirping, and the sweet, sunshiny presence vanishes, leaving silence and shadow behind.”
Helen's "job" in Jane Eyre is basically to calm Jane down. Helen teaches Jane that there are many worse things in life than to be insulted, or hit; and Helen also instills in Jane a sense that all will work itself out in Heaven. This is a philosophy that Jane continuously reflects on during and after her time at Thornfield. Helen essentially serves as Jane's spiritual advisor, and helps Jane develop her spirituality away from fairy tales and horror. I'm not saying that this is necessary to do for everyone (I don't know if Helen's worldview leaves a lot to the imagination), but Helen is irreplaceable when it comes to creating the grown-up Jane Eyre.
Doesn't it say of Helen that she was a strong character not to flare up at every slight dealt to her? That she didn't overreact? That she was patient, and understanding, and faithful? It isn't fair to judge Helen Burns's character using Jane as a perfect model because neither Jane nor Helen are perfect! They are wildly different girls, and part of the attraction to their friendship is that the reader can learn from both of them just as Helen and Jane learn from each other.
These are just my thoughts on Jane's time at Lowood; if anyone else wants to discuss something that I might have forgotten (or that you don't agree with), please comment below!
-M
