Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë

I read this as part of a read-along with Julie from My 5 Monkeys and Karen at For What It's Worth and those both link to their great reviews. The ideas here are my own, but they are wonderfully tempered (or emphasised!) by the fact we did weekly discussions of the book, at 10 chapter intervals. This was also done in March. 


I'm also the last to post the review...Oh well.

4
Jane Eyre is the story of (you guessed it) Jane Eyre, an orphan born low and seemingly destined to be treated as such for the entirety of her life. Like any good classic, the opportunity to discuss social differences and prejudices is by no means avoided and even when the story could be considered dated or bizarre, it all comes together at the end.

In terms of the beginning, there isn't a great deal of import, in many ways. Sure it sets up character, background and all that, but  failing (I think) in many classics is that they often feel the need to tell you everything about a person growing up rather than significant events. Maybe it's a period thing; in that people in the past preferred seeing events for themselves and making their own conclusions. Things get better (and more interesting) just before she leaves Gateshead. In some ways, it gets better when she's 18 and her voice starts to sound like her own and the story starts being believable in terms of her being reliable as a narrator.

Something that becomes clear at Gateshead is an idea of feminism. The feeling I got from the institution was that it was set up to make women and girls perfect wives: meek and quiet but educated. They should be practically subservient: inferior, on might say. It drove me insane and, thankfully, annoyed Jane too! One thing mentioned in the discussion was that even the self-assured women in classics want to be seen as conforming to what society expects of them. Jane, on two notable occasions I can think of, demonstrates this anger and fierce pride she has of being herself and being a women. There's this line in A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen where Christine says that she has important duties, not only to family and marriage, but to herself. For me, it was the same idea. She may be a servant/governess, and she may be socially inferior; but she is still a human- with feelings, hopes and ambitions- and should be treated as such, even by herself. On the occasions I'm thinking of: one concerning Mrs. Reed, the other with Rochester, she asserts such. She transforms from an inferior to position to one of being an equal- which is practically scandalous. Aristocracy, for Victorians, was the idea that the uppers classes were born to rule; and as such should be treated with great respect. In standing for herself, Jane goes against this. However, there is a voice telling me that this is not completely the case since her mother was, formerly, an aristocrat so she has some of  that "right".

The romance is key to this book, since her relationship with Rochester (referred to as R. from now on) underlines the most important elements of the story and cause the main conflicts; asks the most important questions. I was of two minds about R. since he seemed like a great guy half the time, and other times he seemed like a completely different person. Ultimately, the impression I got was that I he couldn't trusted until his physical condition made it necessary for him to rely on people such that he needed their trust in its entirety.

The romance itself was nice though. It wasn't blindly amorous and Jane and R. were fairly vocal about one another with their faults. But the fact they couldn't get together straight away underlines the huge problem in the relationship (in my opinion) that Brontë gave us: R. did not need Jane. That sounds particularly harsh on him, but it's true. He didn't love her any less, not do I think he devalued her, but I think that he would have stifled her with how independent he was and how, in some ways, he was quite selfish. As he says himself, he tries hard to do the good thing, but I think it is in his nature to be somewhat self-centred- which is how Jane was (arguably) until she embraced religion.

Religion, I should say, is also important. There's a use of contrast in this sense since Jane has a very moderate, stereotypically liberal protestant kind of faith. She believes in the grace of God and such things, but she still believes that life is not merely spiritual and know that she can't live her life for a reward at the end of it. To use a recent internet meme, by whose use I feel I'm sullying everything I stand for, YOLO (You Only Live Once). She wants to enjoy her life and live it according to how she wants to live it. If that coincides with a very religious life, so be it. If not, she won't sacrifice herself and what she believes; she truly believes that who she is as a person is the most powerful and important thing about life. At least, that's the feeling I get.

Skipping a whole bunch, I'll give my opinion on the ending. You can basically sum up chapters 20-30 with what the hell just happened? and Who are and what have you done with and to my protagonists? It's weird, though the ending balances it somewhat.

The ending was great, in general. I had a few niggly nuances with the haste of it all, and it was a tad predictable but only in the sense that it is a classic with a happy ending, and Victorian novelists had a very specific idea of what defined happiness. I think what won the ending for me was that Jane seemed to truly be herself. Her life of being a servant in one way or another always seemed to hinder her somewhat. Her position was precarious enough that she had to maintain her manners and be a certain way since society demanded it, lest she be outcast to die. But in her situation at the end, she doesn't have these restraints. She's still polite and humble as a person, but she is free. If she is silent now, it is because she chooses to be, not because she must. She grew up and though she isn't blindly innocent, she is optimistic.

So it's a great book, and- since it need be said- Karen read it as her first (optional) classic so it might be a gateway classic for others who want to read it! Just make sure you read past the first ten chapters!

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

What is she doing with her hands?

4

The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopia set in a world with high infertility meaning Handmaid's are forcibly employed as, to all intents and purposes, Mistresses, but with the express wish to have children; thereby making them describable as choice-less surrogate mothers.

This is the first time I've read anything by Atwood and I was incredibly impressed with her writing style. Two pages in, I'd realised that I'd been so enraptured in the writing that I haven't even paid much attention to what happened. This was a trend which continued at other points, often meaning I had to re-read entire chapters. But I think it was worth it, since one so rarely finds something so well written and enrapturing merely because the text is beautiful. Also, the environment and lives of those around our protagonist- which were bleak, depressing and abominable in many ways- seemed almost surreally pristine. I'd compare it to ice since everything seemed so perfect, but you knew it was cold world, with sharp edges, and viable to smash in an instant.

I was also pleasantly surprised with the world itself, since it wasn't a predictable dystopia. I know there are other dystopias based around infertility and the way society combats it, but this was published in 1985, hardly the height of dystopian publishing. Also, this world was much more freshly a dystopia. Though I probably have read one, I can't remember a dystopia where the story began such a short time after the establishment of this society. Rather than a protagonist who was told stories and recalls them as hope and ideals, Offred (our main character, so named because she is the 'mistress' Of-Fred) remembers the time and can describe how she felt. It also adds the interesting element of how true is what she tells us? In such dire conditions, better times are always remembered as better than they were.

The most interesting thing about the book though was the idea of: Freedom from rather than freedom to. This society defends itself saying there are restrictions in order to guarantee safety. You may not be able to buy alcohol, but there is no (okay, small) chance of you being stolen from. It's an interesting idea, and I think anyone would pause for a moment reading that, since who are we to say what is better? We live in a world were freedom to is the only possibility without open dictatorship, but freedom from is also a powerful thing. I would always choose the former (to) but I live in a freedom to society so I am biased. Having freedom to you can choose to live so as to have freedom from, but living in a world of freedom from you'll never have true freedom to do whatever you want and face consequences as they arise. The book suggests that Freedom comes at a price, and that society reached a point where that price was too high.

I liked as well how the whole dystopian society was explained. Basically, it was power grab and the more rigid application of a Patriarchy, given women no rights. It suggests there was response to feminism much more violent to our own. Eventually a military group faked a terrorist attack on the President and Congress and then took control- indefinitely. The reason it works was that this was done in such a short time so anyone who knew and wanted to stop it wouldn't be able to: it would already be established and have the power to 'silence' revolutionaries. It then goes on to indoctrinate women, who lose all the rights as free citizens. It presents men as overly sexualised to the point that they want to copulate merely at the sight of the women. I'm not explaining very well, but every new stage of the dystopia we learn is a logical continuation of the last stage.

So I really liked this. I like that my first foray into Atwood's books has been so successful and I hope to read her again. I think I'll also point out that the tone of the book is never really happy, and I can't remember once when it was hopeful: so don't read this if you're looking for a happy read.