I’m sick of both Athens and Jerusalem today.
I admire how my notorious frenemy Harold Bloom situates literature within “one extended conversation”.
Rochester in Jane Eyre and Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights palpably are Byronic hero-villains.
Bloom says he likes Jane Eyre because he’s a sadomasochist.
Fighting jews gets old, eventually you get the urge to fight with a woman, so why not pick a worthy enemy?
no other fictive character is so given to cudgeling male readers as is Jane Eyre, surrogate for Charlotte Brontë, who out-Byrons Byron
Brontë subtitles this “An Autobiography”. She was eight years old when he died and had read all of his works by the age of thirteen, so this is evidently some elaborate fantasy of hers that she wrote.
I know my woman reader wants this so bad, and she’ll never get it either
Well, this fails the Bechdel test from the get-go, so there’s that. I feel like I’m just poking a lioness right now. Wouldn’t you be mad if this post turned out to be all about Byron and not about Brontë at all? It might very well turn out to be about Lord Byron.
I do like this language
the governess Jane and her master Rochester
I never get anything out of this behavior, it just makes me laugh so I continue to do it anyway.
“So you get tired of messing with the jews so you move on to this?” Yeah we’re all different species, and I don’t like to pretend “we’re all the same” – we’re all ENEMIES by nature too, besides being simply different species.
Anyway, it’s speculated that Brontë identified with Rochester as much as she identified with Jane.
What do you think of this statement of hers? Does it seem like a lie to you?
[t]he standard hero[e]s and heroines of novels are personages in whom I could never . . . take an interest, believe to be natural or wish to imitate
Give me a break, woman! This reminds me of how Cormac McCarthy should be locked up for the characters he created. He obviously identified with those psychopaths when he created them. File all this under “the quarrel between philosophy and poetry” of course.
What is wrong with women?
When the blind and maimed Rochester has retired into miserable isolation after the destruction of Thornfield, he misanthropically ‘refuses everybody’
This is their idea of writing a novel. Natural enemies will never have ~equality~. We’re just looking into woman’s id with this classic novel.
One of Brontë’s early characters calls Byron one of her four favorite people in history. What is the psychology there?
They just want you to be domesticated
Poor Rochester dwindles into a virtuous, highly dependent husband, in Charlotte’s ultimate triumph over Lord Byron.
Tell me there isn’t some kind of ill-will there. I’d call it “leftism” but no, that’s just a woman. It makes me wonder if leftism arose from women more than anything. “There, your vitality is gone and now you’re down to MY level.” That’s their idea of “fixing you”.
When Brontë first has Jane meet Rochester she makes him look like a fool. Symptoms. The fantasy of having the upperhand from the beginning. I almost want to go back to fighting the jews when I think too much about women’s motivations.
This is like a genealogy of feminism.
One of the few writers neech had only good things to say about was Byron
the supernatural aspects of Manfred’s nature, whose will supersedes even Fate.
So Brontë identified with this. BYRON was the Fate that she had to supersede. The will of man is against the world; the will of woman is against man. Supersede the superseder of Fate. Why don’t you just do it yourself, why does a man have to be involved? Bechdel!
Imagine me talking like this in an institution. In institutions we are supposed to pretend we aren’t natural enemies. Ironically, that is a feminine institution. Zero-sum game, that I’m not letting women win.
Real life is not like the books
at the last turning point of the novel, when Jane and Rochester experience a kind of telepathy, and consequently Jane runs back in order to save him from misery.
Saving him from misery by triumphing over him and domesticating him? I’m not sure if that’s saving him.
Speaking of “dragons”, it seems like everyone is afraid of both jews and women. No one challenges them. You are my natural enemies, I will fight you!
I feel personally insulted by this
true love and determination can redeem even a “borderline character” like the Byronic Rochester
Jews and women are the “borderline characters” that need to be redeemed. YOU will be domesticated.
It seems like both jews and women are dark magicians that have a spell on everyone. The spell of women is still on me, I think they’re more powerful than jews. People probably are mostly under the jew spell BECAUSE of the woman spell. I’ll fight you to the death, and I know I’ve killed some of you too, say hi to your ghost for me. Oh, you can’t say hi, you can only say boo, because you’re the ghost.
This is romance, wow
I feel akin to him—I understand the language of his countenance and movements: though rank and wealth sever us widely, I have something in my brain and heart, in my blood and nerves, that assimilates me mentally to him
See, you won’t get this from either Athens or Jerusalem.
This is entertaining to read as Brontë’s fantasy
“I’m not my characters!!” Sure.
This is how “Rochester” defines “Jane” wink wink
at once so frail and so indomitable
My broader speculation here though is that literature is not only a symptom but a cause too. Altering the Byronic hero to make him more repentant, remorseful, tameable, etc. is also altering culture. Jane Eyre is a classic because lots of people read it and were influenced by it.
Probably worth noting that this was written about 50 years after the French Revolution. God is tameable–>kings are tameable–>men are tameable.
You know the expression “mad, bad, and dangerous to know”? That was first used to describe Byron. Writers like Brontë are just tools of the State. Make everyone nice and orderly.
I guess I’m not a total reactionary about this though, because I see this as an improvement in culture
Unlike Astarte in Byron’s Manfred, Jane Eyre, Helen Graham, and Cathy and Catherine are individuals with personal identities in their own right
On the other hand this is a slippery slope to women wanting their “wills to supersede Fate” and that’s destructive of society. Why can’t they supersede Fate in a way that’s good for society? You don’t seem to see much of that. It’s a possible option in these still-early days of feminism.