<p>Mary, I agree about the interesting characteristics of Rochester in “Jane Eyre.” He did have his cute aspects. It seems like these might have tipped off the readers of Bront</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that’s true. The nuns seemed to genuinely care for her. But she was taken from there once she became a young woman and she couldn’t go back. Once Mr. Mason came to pick her up (and essentially “market” her for marriage), she didn’t have that support system. By the way, did anyone find Mr. Mason’s behavior toward Antoinette a little creepy as she matured into womanhood, or am I imagining things?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe he was just being a fond, responsible step-father, but I don’t know…the interaction just seemed a little prurient to me. To me, everyone’s motives are suspect in WSS. (That’s not a criticism, just an observation—it does make for interesting reading!)</p>
<p>Now that you mention Antoinette’s stepfather and his gifts, it does sound possibly a little creepy, but I never noticed it at the time.</p>
<p>He was one of her few contacts with the outside world (Aunt Cora was away in England), and he was acknowledging her womanhood. The nuns would probably not have done that. The other girls (many of them younger)?..I don’t know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good, good point. I change my mind: I’m glad I read JE first.</p>
<p>While a few positive characters do inhabit Antoinette’s world, the reader does not get to know them. As NJTM points out, “that’s not Rhys’ way” but most likely contributes to the arm’s length feeling I mentioned. And, if you think about it, Aunt Cora and Sandi do not serve as a refuge for Antoinette; Aunt Cora “turned her face to the wall” while Antoinette’s relationship with Sandi (whatever it may or may not be) exacerbates her problems in the end.</p>
<p>I agree that the physical descriptions of the landscape in both books added to the mood in each of the novels.
A good point to about Mr. Mason. Antoinette’s mother was certainly not taken care of in a safe place.
I would have liked to have seen more of Sandi.
At the end of WSS it’s almost as if Rochester has decided to break Antoinette-vowing to lock her up. He has mixed feelings-I still didn’t get from the novel why he would react so strongly to the letter from Daniel.</p>
<p>
When I read this paragraph I thought he was looking at her like she was merchandise…checking her out before giving her to Rochester. Both interpretations are creepy.</p>
<p>
Yes, even her first trip walking to the convent was full of taunting and danger by others. Sandi helped, but the feeling of safety came after she stepped through the convent doors.</p>
<p>ignatius - Glad I could help. :)</p>
<p>PATheaterMom, you remarked on the racism in WSS. Could Rochester’s strong reaction to Daniel’s letter have had anything to do with the fact that Daniel had revealed that Antoinette had close relatives who were colored and that she had had a relationship of some kind with a colored boy who looked white??</p>
<p>Interesting thought NJTheatreMom-and I could see Rochester reacting that way. I hadn’t thought about that but that could be how he would react to the letter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As NJTheatreMOM said, Mrs. Fairfax didn’t know who the madwoman was—although it would have been nice for her to have at least warned Jane that Rochester was housing such a “guest,” even if the relationship was unknown! Rochester tells Jane, “Mrs. Fairfax may indeed have suspected something, but she could have gained no precise knowledge as to facts.”</p>
<p>When she learns that Jane and Rochester plan to marry, Mrs. Fairfax seems more concerned with class than anything else, noting that “Gentlemen in his station are not accustomed to marry their governesses.” But she has enough concern to offer Jane this cryptic warning: “It is an old saying that ‘all is not gold that glitters;’ and in this case I do fear there will be something found to be different to what either you or I expect” (p. 185).</p>
<p>Did any of you ever see the George C. Scott-Susannah York version of “Jane Eyre” (1970)? That’s the movie I grew up on—my sisters and I used to be so excited when it played on late night TV. George C. Scott was the most believable Rochester I’ve ever seen in terms of ugliness and age. Seems like the actors who play him have gotten progressively handsomer and younger ever since…</p>
<p>George C Scott is such a fabulous actor that I’m sure he must make a great Rochester. He’s my favorite Ebenezer Scrooge!</p>
<p>I was looking at some clips on youtube, and the William Hurt/Charlotte Gainsbourg version (1996) looks good. Hurt is a big favorite of mine. I don’t much like the way Gainsbourg looks/acts in the role, though (based on the clips).</p>
<p>Susannah York in the George C Scott version seems to be a very pretty Jane, with rather puffy hair!</p>
<p>^ Yes, she’s too pretty. I guess having two homely actors was never going to fly with the American public. :)</p>
<p>I saw the Hurt/Gainsbourg version. I liked him very much, but did not really care for Charlotte Gainsbourg’s interpretation of Jane. </p>
<p>We could create one masterful production by just piecing together our favorite parts/cast members from every different film version!</p>
<p>I have a question about Wide Sargasso. Can anyone suggest a reason why the little boy appeared near the end, desperately wanting to go with Antoinette and Rochester? Antoinette explains to her husband:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How could this boy possibly love Rochester, who has displayed no affection for or understanding of any of the natives? What does he represent? The only thought I had was that this child, weeping as the unhappy couple departs, is the symbolic offspring of Antoinette and Rochester. He is the innocence that they left behind, and is a combination of both of them: She is the one who loves Rochester very much, and he is the one who is crying for what he has lost.</p>
<p>Great interpretation, Mary. You’re probably right. That whole passage about leaving Granbois is so very poignant.</p>
<p>Also, it could be that the boy loves Antoinette, not Rochester, and she lies about it, wanting to flatter him. The fact that she stopped and ran her tongue over her lips right before she said the boy loved him may indicate that she was calculating what to say at that moment.</p>
<p>The passage about the boy shows that Antoinette was not simply in a stupor during the final days at Granbois. She had been thinking about the servants, and thinking about the future. She herself would probably have liked to take the boy, so that she would have a continuing link to the place.</p>
<p>^ Good point.</p>
<p>The disdain that Rhys’ Rochester has for the child doesn’t mesh with Bronte’s Rochester, when you consider his rescuing of Adele:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless, of course, Rhys was imagining that the later Rochester took in Adele out of remorse over the child he left behind at Granbois, never to enjoy “the wholesome soil of an English country garden.”</p>
<p>I hate to keep harping on the race issue, but Ad</p>
<p>Mary13, thank you for answering the question about what Mrs Fairfax knew.
</p>
<p>This reminded me of the painting- courmarant with the gold jewelry. I guess both JE and Rochester found that the “material world-wealth via an arranged marriage” is not all that glitters. Perhaps one of the reasons he connected to the paintings, wasn’t he drowning in his messy life. </p>
<p>**There were so many little things in WSS that reminded me of JE. **
Mary you mentioned how creepy Mr Mason’s gift giving moments were. This reminded me of the Rochester’s gifts for Adele, not in a creepy way, but it wasn’t warm and fuzzy and sweet. </p>
<p>I thought Adele was Rochester’s child, despite his protests, but now I’m not so sure.
Also, I thought the boy at the end of WSS, was Antoinette’s son with Sandi? </p>
<p>I read WSS fast, and many times slammed down WSS, disgusted that Rochester had been so distorted by Rhys!
Imagine reading in 100 years that a grown up Harry Potter was a pedophile?
OK, maybe my analogy is weak, (I’ve never read any of the Harry Potter books) but know that he is a beloved character by this generation. </p>
<p>Back to the comparison of WSS and JE -
Mental instability
Someone locked away
House that is ruins,
servants who know family secrets
Rochester is the outsider in WSS, JE an outsider in JE
Class structure/ Race issues
Natural setting very important
Child with unknown parentage - Adele, boy at the end
Gift giving scenes
Birds, Birds, Birds, so glad Ignatius wrote about the birds earlier----ugh, got so tired of the bird metaphor
The Nightmare/ breakdown scene dreamlike in the same way the Gypsy scene was in JE
Attack with Knives</p>
<p>^^ I did like reading these two books together, even though I had some “issues” with WSS, I enjoyed the various points of view, even though I often didn’t know who was speaking. Like others I had to reread sections. I’m grateful that Rhys expanded our views of the “madwoman in the attic”, but like BUandBC and Mary13, I think she overstepped some boundaries. Guess there aren’t " intellectual rights or copyright" issues with literary figures ?</p>
<p>SJCM, it passed through my mind that the crying boy could have been Antoinette’s son, but I really don’t think Antoinette was old enough. Even when you’re talking about places and/or historical periods in which all children don’t necessarily attend school, I don’t think children would normally be used as servants until at least age 8 or so.</p>
<p>In addition, a pregnancy and a child would have been very hard for her and her family to hide, and Daniel presumably would have known about it and spilled the beans to Rochester.</p>
<p>^^^ I agree. Daniel would know and Daniel would tell.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I call Mr. R. cruel and consider this ^^^ the deciding factor, well, this and callously having sex with Amelie in the room next to his wife. I can almost understand the latter: Antoinette uses him, so he turns around and hurts her in the most effective way he can. But I don’t understand his latent desire to “break” Antoinette; it makes little sense. He could have left with or without her and with little fear of repercussion - no need to crush one and all (and I’m thinking of the servants, too.) I’m not sure he really believed Antoinette “mad” at that point, though he calls her his “mad” girl. I think he understands the crossroads where he stands and decides to push the girl he married into the role of mad wife in the attic. (Did not like that man!)</p>
<p>I think I can live with parallel Rochesters. Both Charlotte Bronte and Jean Rhys created wonderful novels-and I can accept both of their worlds. I love Rochester as Bronte wrote him, and very much do not like Rochester as Rhys wrote him. But each story really does stand on its own.
I did think Rochester was like our own country and England’s history-if we look into our country’s past we see so much racism and classism and sexism. Yet in spite of the nineteeth century English viewpoint, Bronte did imbue Jane with independence, compassion and resourcefullness.<br>
I am grateful that “the Madwoman in the Attic” was given a voice by Rhys as well.</p>