DEb-what an inspiration. I read Jane Eyre also about 40 years ago, during summer vacation. I remember loving it then , and vaguely remember the movie with a young Liz Taylor playing Jane's friend at the orphanage. Must get over to the publc library soon,

I read this multiple times as a teenager, and perhaps it's time to dust it off again. I'd love to have my DD read it, too.

Jane Eyre was one of my literary role models growing up. As a child, I read the first part (until she reaches 18) over and over. My favorite part was when she tells Mr. Brocklehurst that to avoid going to hell, she must stay well and not die. She was a fighter and that was an inspiration. As a teen I finished the book. Talk about a strong female protagonist with integrity! Wrote a paper about Charlotte in college too. Charlotte and jane were real survivors.

I reread Jane Eyre after watching the BBC Production of it with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. What a wonderful production and the truest to the story that I think has been made. If you want to see the pages come alive get the DVD or try and rent it. 330minutes

I've been thinking it would be wonderful to re-visit this classic I read over 40 years ago. If enough of us decided to re-read and discuss it, we could start a thread.

woodnymph, I'd be game to re-read if anyone else is interested.

It's funny that this thread appeared- packing up my classroom I found a brand new copy of Jane Eyre which I set aside. I would be happy to reread it-I think its been over 30 yrs. for me.

I've probably mentioned too many times how much I love Jane Eyre. I like to reread it every few years; and it's been a couple of years since the last time, so I'm willing (more than willing) to read it again.

I love it, too, and have reread it several times over the years, but it has been awhile. Let's do discuss it.

I'm all for it!

Me too!

I read it for the first time a couple years ago, in college.

I loved it! I was a nanny and I identified with a lot of the not-really-a-servant-nor-a-family-member weird status of a governess; odd how much I could relate to that, I thought.

I love that this is a novel where love does not come from physical beauty. And I love what Charlotte and Anne had to say about the crappy position of a poor but educated woman at the time they were writing--get married for money (be a prostitute, basically, but with less freedom than a prostitute), be a governess, or starve. I am soooo grateful to the generations of women who came before me.

I hate that such a strong defiant character as Jane's fell for a man who was so dominant over her--then in the end he needed her to take care of him--so extreme, passive/dominant and no in-between partnership (like Anne Bronte's Shirley got). But I guess that was the nature of the time and genre.

I've been 20 pages away from the end of Villette for months. I need to finish it and find a copy of The Professor. (Says the girl currently reading David Sedaris.)

But I'd love to have a JE thread! (Says the girl who recently discussed it ad naseum in class.)

Let's start one in a few weeks, to give everyone a chance to catch up!

Go on then, count me in as well. We'll need a male perspective, to counteract all you swooning women....

(ducks as multiple hardback copies of Jane Eyre come flying towards him...)

Hahahaha Martin, you are right as usual! (Don't damage those books, throw wet noodles instead ; )

Good. As soon as I finish "The Remains of the Day", I'll try to find a copy of JE.

I picked up a copy of JE at the library today and was appalled to find that Jane is portrayed as a breathtakingly beautiful young woman (buxom too!!!) Did the illustrator read the book? Oh well, the illustrations are nice and the type is nice and big for these over-40 eyes ; )

I read JE for the first time this year and it has been one of my favorite reads of 2005. It was wonderful. I look foreward to re-visiting it again in the future. Jane and Helen's friendship is one of the aspects of the book I found most interesting.

The friendship of Helen and jane is also one of my favorite parts of the book. I wonder if Charlotte is expressing her own life philosophy thru both characters. In Jane, you can't always believe what others think about you, and you have to be tough and have a fighting spirit to survive. In Helen, we should not return evil with evil, and there is a an immortal spirit that survives this life, and that it is important to have hope. Jane seems to find in Helen someone with peace of mind.
I have trouble with Jane's relationship with Rochester. I don't see the attraction. That's why Ilve stopped reading.
It makes me appreciative of the 21st century when to see the world Jane's only choice is to become a governess; not exactly a life of adventure, and that to travel 50 miles is an incredibly long distanc e.

BTW, the Jane on my cover looks pale and morose. In fact she looks so dreadful I might need to get a bookcover!

I'd be happy to join a discussion when the time comes. I read this book several times over as a girl and would enjoy looking at it with an adult perspective.

Paula

I'd like to join in on the discussion too. I've read JE several times and wouldn't mind reading it again!

Any idea on a timeframe for the discussion? I'm looking forward to revisiting Jane after many years, but Harry Potter is looming on my reading horizon!

I have checked JE out of the library, but it keeps somehow getting shoved to the bottom of the reading pile, as other, newer works catch my eye.....

Count me in on any discussion!
Jane Eyre is one of my "comfort reads" and I've reread it often enough that parts of it have been memorized. Rochester was never my cuppa tea but the delight in the book was cheering along Jane who was such an underdog. She deserved happiness.

So when are you starting?

This book has been in my TBR pile forever. I have seen so many positive comments about it on this forum over the years. A discussion about it here is a great excuse to move it to the top. After I am done reading "The curious incident of the dog in the night time" of course.

I've not had face to visit here often since the Tolstoy flop. I did get through it finally, but confirmed that I am no good at rereading as there are far too many novel reads to do so.

It's good to be back. Thanks for the excuse on "Jane Eyre".

Kathy

Glad you returned and join the discussion thread when you are done!

I read Jane Eyre for the first time in 1963, when I was in high school. My original book report--which is a disaster--clearly delineates my inability to grasp the full power and passion of the novel. I was 15 years old.
I have read the novel more than 50 times since then; I teach the novel to high school seniors [private school]. As for those who aren't thrilled with Rochester, I would love to engage in a discussion of his character because as a Byronic hero [lacking the handsome looks] he is one of the most interesting characters in all of literature. I believe he actually loved Jane, more than description, but as a man [flawed] he found himself in a enigmatic situation. He clearly saw himself: "Nature meant me to be, on the whole, a good man, Miss Eyre: one of the better kind; and you see I am not so." and adds "...I am a trite commonplace sinner..." [119]. He had no illusions about his own character--only desperation. As for Jane's character--Rochester knew it instinctively. Reread the gypsy scene! He lies in the scene after the thwarted wedding--when he tries to justify his behavior. He knew she would never have agreed were he to openly state his case to her. He knew her resolve. He says to her [Ch 27] "Never, never was anything at once so frail and so indomitable." He admits his strength is superior, but even caged--he would not have her. No, Rochester is a man--mere mortal--and a man so desperately in love he was clouded in judgment. It is possible to trail the threads of his speeches to Jane--which demonstrate as a desperately impassioned man in love, he gambled. However, I could argue that he gambled, knowing full well that the stakes were high and that if he lost--he would lose Jane. Anyone up for the project? I am one of those many women who for 150+ years have forgiven Rochester for his human frailty.
Chiz

Welcome, chiz! I am afraid I read the book way too often in my formative years to wish to read it again, but I think its a fine project to start! Funny thing is that I never thought I had to forgive Rochester - reading it as a much younger person, I always assumed (heh) that if Jane loved him so, then he was a good person. Hopefully you'll have many more folks here piping in - there are many fans here!

I did re-read Jane Eyre about a year ago and found it far more enjoyable now that I am so much older.

As a special treat, I have located the BBC 11 part series of this and have been watching it eagerly. In my opinion it is marvelous. No one could be better than T. Dalton as Mr. Rochester. I don't know the actress at all who plays Jane, but she absolutely looks the part. This version done for TV is so superior to the insipid movie I had seen of the novel a few years back that I will never recommend any other version.

Yes, that is my favorite movie version, too. It is the only one that does not chop major chunks out of the story.

Rosefolly

That was Zelah Clarke. I understand the movie was almost a curse for her and she didn't play in much after that. I'll have to research itagain. I taped the movie when it was shown on TV way back when and it was the deciding factor in my visiting England in 1986. Timothy Dalton was appearing on stage in London. She is my favorite Jane and Timothy my favorite Mr Rochester

The many enthusiastic posts have convinced me to read Jane Eyre. My mother read this to us before we were able to read. I do recall that I did not enjoy listening to it. I am about 1/5 the way through now, and I must say I am finding it very discriptive, but a tad on the "life is brutish" John Locke kind of existance.

Please tell me that the tone of the story becomes less hopeless, or I fear I will not be able to persevere.

Regards,
Bob

Keep going Bob a few surprises ahead.

I just finished this. Was in the mood for a comfort read and also just added some of the film versions of this that I haven't seen to my movie queue, so I wanted to refresh my memory.

What strikes me more with each reading is St. John's importance in this story and what an interesting counterpoint to Jane he really is (the film versions I've seen don't really do justice to this part of the novel). They both seem cut from the same cloth, so much alike but also different when it comes to choices of the heart. I think his real purpose is to show us how true and steadfast Jane has been to her own nature and heart all along.

Has anyone seen the movie Becoming Jane? Is it horrible?

Sorry, wrong Jane!

I own the audio--unabridged, of course! --of JE and listen to in my vehicle. I am sure I read the novel at least once a year! As for the character of St. John Rivers, you are right; no one actor has managed to capture this character. My favorite film, BBC 1983 with Timothy Dalton & Zelah Clarke is possibly the best adaptation; however, this film fails to recognize the fullness of the Rivers' character. He is an interesting character, according to Jane's descriptions. His sermons are good but fail to inspire. He is handsome, dedicated, and rigid. He tries to press his will on Jane, in the name of God. I am not sure he is any better for what he tries to do to Jane than his counterpart [Rochester]. It is an interesting character to explore on film.

I found St. John Rivers frightening in a way Rochester was not. When I first read the book as a teenager, Rochester seemed romantic to me and Rivers represented forces that would separate Jane from him forever. Re-reading it over the years I have come to see the many flaws in Rochester. But Rivers in his conviction that his is the only right way and his divine right to compel Jane to bow to his will is a terrifying figure.

Both men are basically selfish, but Rochester at least seems human and in the end vulnerable. Of the two, he at least loves Jane to the best of his ability.

I've never seen Rivers portrayed well, either. In fact many movies cut the heart out of that whole episode in the interests of keeping the length more manageable. It is a pity.

Rosefolly

I read via audio Jane Eyre for the first time a few weeks ago and loved it. It was frustrating to hear the attitudes of and towards women but I realize it was the era. I determined finally that I would like Jane if I knew her, but she still would frustrate me terribly. Such a different world than the one I live in. But it is a very engaging book, I'm glad I took the time to read it finally in my 40's

Rosefolly, I really agree with you on the assessments of the two men. Rochester is clearly the romantic and the passionate one. Rivers doesn't even have the passion on the pulpit. Jane comments on his sermans. Rochester is not blameless; he has his flaws. On one level he is a Byronic hero; on the other level he is desperately trying to salvage a small portion of happiness in this life. While it is understandable, it is certainly not morally right. He tells Jane, after the thwarted wedding attempt, that he should have come to her and told her the whole story. I would argue that he knew better. When he plays the gypsy, he tells her that he sees in her brow that she could and would live without happiness if self-respect required it. He knew her very well, indeed! Rivers, on the other hand, was cold. He demanded the "right" thing from her insisting that God wanted her to marry him. And he knew he had will to bend hers. He was working on it when Jane hears the voice in the night. Rivers is probably more reprehensible because his Christian beliefs were aligned with the Puritans, which left no room for happiness, love, passion, fun, etc. Just cold dedication. Jane knew she would die under such strong willed restrictions.

ANY CHANCE TO REVIVE THIS MESSAGE BOARD? I AM CERTAINLY INTERESTED...

Sure - why not? Do you have fond memories of reading Jane Eyre, Chiz?

when ever i read it feel well
zeemee

Here is a link that might be useful: Best Romantic Novels

Skip that one, folks. It is an ad.