This review of Jane Eyre appeared in the Athenaeum in early October 1847. What about the novel does it emphasize? What does it leave out? What type of readership does it anticipate? Does it take into consideration a particular audience makeup? Do you agree with the review? How does it define readership and the act of reading?
Though I agree with the initial statement in the review—there are some strange but powerful happenings in the novel—I overall found the piece to be dull. It fails, for example, to tie these melodramatic occurrences to the overall theme of escape, the importance of fantasy throughout Jane’s tale. Rather, the review mainly consists of plot summary, and even then it misses a good deal of the book by not mentioning Mary, Diana, or St. John. It is ironic, then, that the reviewer judges the novel as ideal for those to “prefer story to philosophy”, and yet fails to mention not only these three major characters, but also minor characters who supply a great deal of philosophy on the Divine—the novel ends, “Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus!”
ReplyDeleteThe review certainly emphasizes Jane’s time with Mr. Rochester; their budding romance is termed “a mutual understanding”. While this could be seen as an astute description of what in modern terms would be understood as the equality of the genders, I think in the context of the review it appeals to a readership who value naturalism, and a lack of the sentimental. Meanwhile, the “mystery of Thornfield” is surprisingly appraised as true to reality, and even comparable to a happening in contemporary society. However, this example is of a male miscreant, and so is far from the context of the novel, and does not appreciate the high stakes of a tortured woman, foreigner, and mentally disturbed individual. The emphasis is on Mr. Rochester keeping the secret, but as the review lacks discussion of contemporary religious principles, we cannot judge his guilt in this way. Overall, the review lacked substance for me, and while it does not condemn Jane Eyre, it portrays a fairly mediocre (normal) story, which does not seem worth reading.
I agree that this summary is dull and not as three-dimensional as I thought it should be. As mentioned, I feel that much of the important elements of the novel were overlooked, and misinterpreted, in my opinion. The review claims that the power of the novel allows us to overlook certain fantastical aspects of the novel, but I don't think those parts were meant to be overlooked. The characteristics of Jane Eyre in the different stages of the novel are also overly dramatic and not as deep and insightful as many modern readers interpret the novel to be. The readership anticipated must have been more focused on the dynamics of the relationships within the novel and less on the underlying messages; for example, the novel stresses religious issues, which the review doesn't address as strongly.
ReplyDeleteI, too, agree that this review is not as nuanced as it could be. The lack of subtlety does a great injustice to Bronte’s novel, as it appears to gloss over many ambiguities within the text. Most of the review is pure plot summary, but even that is truncated. It focuses entirely on the character of Jane, excluding mention of many other less visible but nonetheless important characters. Helen and Mrs. Reed, for example, are two relatively minor characters that have a big impact on Jane’s moral and spiritual development. I think that’s the main point that the reviewer misses – Jane’s personhood does not exist in a vacuum. Her emerging identity is shaped by her interactions (both positive and negative) with others.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the reviewer underestimates the readership of the novel. He establishes story and philosophy as mutually exclusive categories, and this is simply not the case for Bronte’s text. It is as if he envisions an audience that is purely interested in fluff and eschews any element of substance. Needless to say, I can’t imagine that Bronte would be thrilled with this review – it does both her and her readers a great disservice by underestimating and devaluing her work.
The audience seems to be a group of people who is more interested in the simple pleasures of life and those who are less compelled to think about deeper matters. Whether this is directed specifically towards the baser classes or the frivolous ranks of the upper middle classes is unknown.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is interesting that this author distinguishes between two distinct spheres of reading: that for pleasure and that for knowledge. For those reading for pleasure, the central aspect of a novel is its plot and the book's ability to amuse the reader. Reading is passive and the information flows in one direction from the author to the reader. However, in reading for knowledge, reading is more active and reader must decide whether or not the information being presented is valid. These distinct spheres of reading prevent the author of the review from appreciating the finer and more subtle aspects of Jane Eyre which gives the novel its depth.
The review is very much focused on the literal characterization of Jane, and not at all on the spiritual growth of Jane. That said, the review seems to be geared toward a readership that is not sentimental in the least. The focus of this review is on Jane's situation as an orphan before and during her time living with her aunt, as well as a description of her relationship with Rochester. Although this relationship is described, it lacks sentimentality. Also, this review forgets an entire section of the book that plays a large role in Jane's growth and characterization; Mary, Diana, and St. John are not even mentioned. This seems to rid the novel of spirituality, as this is where most of Jane's growth in terms of spirituality occurs.
ReplyDeleteTo jump on the bandwagon, I too found the review disappointing. It focuses solely on plot while ignoring the narrative, and therefore its criticisms are correct in the particulars but overall empty in meaning. Yes, some rather odd and dramatic events occur in the novel, but it strikes me as dead wrong that the book is therefore aimed at those who prefer "story" to "philosophy." So much of the book focuses on Jane's emotional and spiritual progression, not just the things that happen to her - or, more accurately, the events she creates for herself.
ReplyDeleteThe review focuses, therefore, on high drama and victimhood, telling the tales of the Reeds and Rochester, but mostly ignoring Lowood and the Rivers. It's the way many might feel, as we discussed in class, in first reading the novel - that the entire Moor House section is just a detraction from the more exciting, romantic aspects of the novel. But I also agree with our class's conclusion that Jane's post-Thornfield experiences, though duller in action, are rich in significance. This review basically ignores the aspects of the novel that do not immediately jump off the page as exciting and tumultuous, assuming that readers will be equally uninterested.
This review of Jane Eyre appears to anticipate a readership interested only in a simple, plot-driven work.
ReplyDeleteThe reviewer focuses on some relatively mundane topics. He comments on Jane's dismaying rebelliousness and passion in early chapters, "dangerous gifts" that prevent her from bearing injustices as peacefully as we assume he would deem appropriate.
The review attempts to justify the basic premise of the novel, stating that Jane's procurement of a position at a place like Thornfield, and even that there would be a madwoman secretly kept there are not too farfetched. The purpose of this justification is made clear in his last statement, that Jane Eyre is just story.
He goes on to point out perceived deficiencies in the plot, that Jane's predicament is too dramatic and that she ultimately gets too much assistance from contrived forces, until in the end her obstacles "fall down," and she can live happily ever after. The reviewer seems to miss the significance of Jane's choices and development, and doesn't even mention the defining events at Moor House in his synopsis. He doesn't mention the author's treatment of religious and social topics, which is poignant enough to evoke responses like the review we read in class, decrying Jane Eyre as anti-Christian.
The article chooses to focus on Jane's strong personality as a child, the hardships that come to her because of it, and finally the statement that she eventually grew into a self-sustained young woman. Essentially, they focused on the most basic summary of Jane's development that could have possibly been said. She was wild, she suffered for it, she learned to get over it.
ReplyDeleteIt then talks of Adele as the typical example of French frivolousness, and Rochester as relatable to reality- as though to undermine any intrigue that might be instilled by the narrative. It even takes the great plot twist of Rochester's mad wife and turns it into a reference.
The review chooses to acknowledge only three of the four great influential periods of Jane's life, leaving out her time with St. John and his sisters- probably because of the lack of excitement. It is a very shallow review, briefly noting the conflicts that shape Jane's (according to the review) generic development, and ignoring the spiritual growth, maturity, and other advancements of Jane's character.
The review seems to be catering to those readers who focus mainly on the plot, as though readers generally did not read below the surface. It also turns the story into less of an admirable fantasy or otherworldly experience and tries to make every unique point relatable to the public, essentially making Jane Eyre out to be more normal than out of the ordinary.
Essentially it takes the new and the radical- the color- out of the novel and tries to flatten it out into something less than what it is.