Friday, September 26, 2008
Jane's persuit to.........?
I have become so frustrated with Janes ignorence and stupidity. She sets a goal for her self to accomplish, and then she works for it so hard, and then she throws it away once she obtains it. For example, I had thought that the point of the whole book was for Jane to win Rochesters love, and she finaly finds it and their hearts beat as one, but then the next day she peaces before any one even wakes up? That just makes me so mad. She says that inside she forgives him, but she can not give in to it. If she truly feels that she forgives him than why the hell would she just walk out on him. It makes me so mad just thinking about it and it is even worse to write about it. I hate JANE, she straight up sucks. Then her cuz asks for her hand in marriage????what is up with that, if any of my family members asked me to marry them I would change my name and move out of the country. Then she decides that it would be a good time for her to go back and see Rochester. She thinks that she can just walk out on him like that and then show up whenever she wants? She also expects him to jsut take her back? I think Rochester is the only good charecter in the book, his only flaw is that he is assosiated with stuiped Jane Eyre. All and all I think that Jane should just jump off of a cliff and make eery ones life easier...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i completely agree with neve, Jane is sooooo retarded. If she was so set on finding the love of her life then why the hell would she just take off. Rochester seems like a good match for her and she messed it up, i think she just wants drama since she has had it her whole life. Jane needs to rethink her decision and hope to god Rochester is nice enough to take her back... If i were Rochester i would forget her and just go to like italy and find some hot, rich , smart, good personalitied woman. I hope they dont get back together... Good blog neve you really told it how it is.
I'm really interested in your reaction, and in David's--it seems almost out of proportion with the events in the book. Is the idea of a strong woman acting independently according to her own principles really that intimidating? I do thin that you have a point to argue--that Jane's famed "resistance" breaks on the hard surface of convention (in other words, if she didn't care about society's opinions--this is Rochester's argument earlier in the book, though we don't really know what he's talking about at that point--then she should just say "screw it" and head off to France. But is there another reason she leaves, even though she forgives him immediately? Think about it. (Read some of the others' posts).
As for cousins marrying, that wouldn't have shocked Bronte's contemporaries as much as it may ours.
Post a Comment