Yes, Frieda, I had been thinking of Scarlett and Rhett all during this discussion. They are more real to me than some actual people I know. I remember when I finished my first reading of GWTW at age 14, I cried and wrote in my diary that I could have written a better ending than that. Now I feel it couldn't have ended any other way, but I still get defensive when people say they dislike Scarlett. Melanie may have been the epitome of a lady, but Scarlett is a heroine regardless of her flaws. And, by the way, I hated Alexandra Ripley's Scarlett except for the very end where there was just a whiff of the real Scarlett.

JANE EYRE is like GWTW in that they are both books that were inspired by an unresolved issue in the author's heart.

Did you know that Margaret Mitchell actually met her Rhett Butler? It's in her biography. He was a no-good gambling man, but handsome as the devil. She agonized about whether to marry him, and in the end she chickened out, marrying the safe nice guy in her life (the equivalent of Frank Kennedy). But ever afterwards she wondered, -should- I have married him? How would it have worked out? And she put all this into the book. (And after she died, in an auto accident, the gambler spent years dining out on the story that he was the original Rhett.)

Charlotte Bronte also met her Mr. Rochester, but it did not turn out well. She left Yorkshire to teach school in Belgium, and fell in love with the owner of the school. Unfortunately it was one-sided -- he was happily married with several kids, and his wife showed no signs of insanity nor of dying in a house fire. So Charlotte went home and wrote the story the way it ought to be. I wonder whether the schoolmaster ever read JANE EYRE, and what he made of it.

Brenda

Or worse - I wonder if his wife read it?

It would make a great tabloid newspaper article, if only they had them then: "HE MADE ME HIS LOVE SLAVE!" OUTRAGED WIFE FILES SLANDER SUIT!"

Brenda

I have seen many of your comments on this book. I'm nearly to the end and I cannot believe that it took me this long to pick this one up. There is something about the way she writes. I can't describe exactly what it is but I have read many passages out load - something lyrical, melodic, and I have not seen anyone mention that aspect. It is probably in my top five list of favorites and I am fast approaching 50, so that says alot as I have already tackled well over thirty percent of the Modern Library list of best fiction novels.

Thank goodness you all turned me on to it.

Kathy

Now that made my day! Another Jane Eyre fan! Thanks for letting us know Kathy.

And I just enjoyed re-reading one of my favorite threads of this past year. Thanks for bringing it back up.

I finally bought and read The Eyre Affair and thoroughly enjoyed this very odd, quirky and delightful book. There were so many literary allusions - I missed many of them, I'm sure - but even so I was laughing out loud on many occasions and recognized many literary friends. And it was fun to meet the Rochesters again. I loved the idea of the "audience participation King Richard ll" -- they took the Rocky Horror Picture Show and made it one better. Wish they had something like that here...

Highly recommended if you like Douglas Adams and I will definitely search out the further adventures of Thursday Next.

Like many another tour-de-force the further adventures of Thursday Next become gradually less and less amusing. However they started out at such a high level that even the fourth book is well worth reading. The encounter session between all the dysfunctional characters in WUTHERING HEIGHTS is hysterical, as is Thursday's effects on Prince Hamlet.

Brenda

Thanks Brenda and Martin for recommending The Eyre Affair. btw, the characters in Wuthering Heights needed an encounter session. I'm looking forward to it.

Hello to all, I am pleased to be joining this discussion. I have just finished Jane Eyre for the third time and I am exploring some new thoughts and ideas. Does anyone else support the idea that Bronte only included the religion in Jane Eyre because she was forced to? I feel like the topic of religion is small in the book but is rather exploited when reading reviews and studies. If you read the first posting by Janalyn, there is a review calling Bronte's book "anti-Christen". Had she not included the religion, surely the book would have been ill recieved. Also, on that same note, I believe there may be some hidden sexuality that could have been further expressed had society in Bronte's time not repressed it so. I'm interested to see if anyone knows of validation in my thoughts or if they are purely a product of a sexually open modern mind.

I'm not enough of a Bronte scholar (or that time period) to be able to competently answer your first question. Frieda might, however.
As for your second, what hidden sexuality are you thinking of?

michelle, I think Bronte brings 'religion' into JE because it formed so large a part of her everyday life. Her Father had been a clergyman, probably her only male friends, other than her wastrel brother, were clergymen, including her Father's curates, one of whom she married. The narrow world of her village and the Church of England would have been the background to her everyday life. I think the 'anti-Christian' thing refers to the lack of morality in Rochester's behaviour; I expect that was written by yet another clergyman.
I'm sure there were books written at roughly that time where religion didn't play much/any of a part . . .but were they written by women?
I don't know if you would agree that these days our minds/eyes/ears might be considered far too 'sexually open'!
I notice in the passage quoted by Janalyn the word 'coarse' is used several times. I suppose that was as near to saying 'sexual' as the writer was prepared to go. I'm quite sure Bronte would have fainted clean away had anyone thought her work contained anything of that nature . . .perhaps a little passion; but all on a genteel higher plain.
And in case Frieda reads this and tells me that JE was a passionate person ie over-emotional she, of course would be right, but getting into the thorny subject of Victorian women and passionate sexual relations is quite another thing and I'll have to leave it to those better qualified to discuss it. It's something that was left out of the 1961 O level English course!

Michelle, your questions are very interesting ones. I haven't properly mulled over them because I just read them a few minutes ago, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean about Charlotte being "forced" into including the religious parts of Jane Eyre. Do you mean Charlotte was compelled to present religion to soften and balance the more sordid aspects of her story so as not to offend her audience too much? If so, she wasn't very successful; quite a number of them had fits -- verbally and in print -- as indicated by reviewers who were shocked and appalled at the "coarseness", or claimed they were, anyway. There's probably no way of knowing for sure whether Charlotte specifically intended to ameliorate, but she was a product of her time and she probably knew subconsciously, if not consciously, that some sops to religion were necessary. As Vee said, religion was so much a part of Charlotte's life, that it would be more surprising if she had not brought it up and worked it into her story somehow.

I recently read an essay by John Maynard titled "The Brontes and Religion" that is included in The Cambridge Companion to The Brontes. He explains that religion was perhaps the greatest obsession of the early Victorians, in a way that is hardly comprehensible to us nowadays. Yet, as inscribed as Charlotte, Emily, and Anne were in the ways of their father's Anglican and their Aunt Branwell's Methodist (but probably not Calvinist) pieties, Charlotte and Emily (Emily especially) were a bit unconventional in their personal views of religion. Charlotte had a jaundiced eye and could give it satirical treatment, as she did in the famous opening of the curates' feast in Shirley when she has the narrator say:
Of late years an abundant shower of curates has fallen upon the north of England; they lie very thick on the hills.Yet, Charlotte was a seeker and she had religious stirrings in Brussels, going so far as to seek out a priest to make confession (he gently declined to hear it). So, the more I ponder it, the less inclined I am to think that Charlotte was forced into incorporating religion into Jane Eyre, at least not in the tangent I've gone off on, which may not be what you mean at all, Michelle.:-)

As for "hidden sexuality": Again, I'm not sure I exactly understand what you mean. Maybe Jane and Rochester were doing a little hanky panky when Mrs. Fairfax was out of sight? Rochester made no bones about having thus indulged, in his past. But Jane couldn't have without losing his respect and her own self-respect (not to mention sending readers into paroxysms). It sounds corny to us, doesn't it? As passionate as Charlotte might have been, I doubt that she would have gone that far; but who knows: What would she have done if Monsieur Heger had propositioned her? Jane, however, I think, would have resisted and stayed true to her character.

I would love to read more about your views, Michelle, and if anything I've said correlates.

I am probably after the fact...but anytime anyone wants to interact about Jane Eyre...please don't hesitate. I am an educator who has taught the novel many times and it is my favorite!

Chiz

Hello, Chiz. No, it's never too late to converse about a favorite. Teaching Jane Eyre...hmm, I bet you could tell us some stories about that!:-) How does the book generally go down with your students? Are they in high school or university? Have any of them ever stumped you with questions? Though I have read Jane Eyre forty-eleven times, along with lots of lit crit and Bronte biographies, I never got to read it in school. I always got stuck reading dystopian novels, instead.

We have had no follow-up from Michelle. Gee, I hope she wasn't put off by my riffing -- which I'm wont to do when I find something very interesting.

I taught JE to high school seniors--when I taught high school. In college, I mostly teach writing classes, some online, and the closest I came was when I used Pride & Prejudice for a class on the relationships/interactions between men & women. There are 217 ACT/SAT vocabulary words in the novel, not to mention other brilliant concepts for adolescents. Most high school students don't read, so we read in class. The first year, I read to them until I lost my voice. Second year, I purchased the audio. My favorite is Susan Ericksen. Anyway, once students really get into the novel, they want a copy to carry home and read ahead. I am always amazed at their responses and perspectives. No, I am able to answer the questions as I have a fairly extensive background in Victorian England. I have enjoyed their responses...and never teach or read the novel that I don't see something new. I have read the novel more times than I have counted and I carry the audio in my vehicle.
I read the novel in grad school, however, my professor was a deconstructionist which was horrible for me. They do not celebrate the novel, the author, the plot, the characters, etc. They rip it apart and make something unrelated out of it. Deconstructionists celebrate the critic --not the literature. It was a horrible experience for me; my passion for the novel is genuine and runs very deep.

All the Bronte siblings wrote wild, tempestous books that are unexpected from a country parsonage. All sorts of weird surmises have been made about the life within that parsonage! A few years ago a book lifted eyebrows and raised hackles, accusing Charlotte of murdering her siblings.
The Crimes of Charlotte Bronte: The Secrets of a Mysterious Family : A Novel (currently at bargain price on the big A.)

There were all sorts of rebuttals, one of which I linked below.

Here is a link that might be useful: Bronte Murder Rebuttal

I had my daughter read it, when she was about 14 or 15, but she denounced it as slow. (She has always been an action-adventure kind of girl, however.)

Brenda

The novel is slow for the first ten chapters; some adolescent books eliminate the childhood years. However, my seniors--once they get past the vocabulary [217 ACT/SAT words, some archaic] they seem to be amazed that the book is "not boring." There is a shift in tone from the point when Jane leaves Thornfield, but all-in-all the novel is one probably the most interesting novel of the Bronte sisters. I have been involved in debates with Wuthering Hts. fans, but tell me...how can a story where the hero and heroine do not marry each other, marry others & virtually destroy lives...excite when the only opportunity for them to be together is in the afterlife? It's not my cup of tea. I am alive and thrill to the excitement of Jane's passion. Patrick Bronte was often considered a bit of a odd duck to allow his daughters to learn and read things that society considered not fit for women. Women were not supposed to read classical literature [Roman & Greek] because of the sexual nature involved. Bronte actually encouraged all his daughters to read and learn, non-stop. I suppose this is why the girls wrote with such passion. However, their passion was bridled--as demonstrated by some of their works. Students' don't ask questions that "stump" me because in open discussions--it is an exchange of ideas. I encourage my students to look for their own points and then defend them with textual evidence. But I do LEARN from them! Often a student will point out something in a different perspective, which can create a chain reaction of ideas. I adore discussions on JE.
Chiz

My all time favorite book - the original gothic! I re-read it every few years. My mother was a JE lover and introduced me to it at age 12, starting a life long love affair with Mr. Rochester. I have several copies purchased or gifted to me over the years: an illustrated reproduction of one of the early editions, a leather bound version, an Everyman's Library version (the first I received from my Mom) and my favorite: a tiny, hardback book with paper thin pages by Oxford Library that is most readable and can be tucked in my purse for carry along.

Robin, Congratulations! You must be a true Jane Eyre lover! I, too, have multiple copies of the novel, but I have an audio that I carry in my vehicle...so I am never without Jane's story. "a life long love affair with Mr. Rochester" is an interesting comment. I am impressed. Therefore, I will ask you...the same question I ask students when I am teaching the novel--why do you suppose Mr. Rochester would compromise Jane's chastity when he obviously loved her so deeply? I would love to interact with you on this novel. There is nothing that inspires me more than serious discussion of points in JE. Sincerely, Chiz

Do you remember Rochester's description of his rackety life after immuring Mrs. Rochester in the attic? He says that he was dissipated, but not debauched. There's a Victorian differentiation to these terms that we probably cannot see. I deduce that he chased the skirts quite a lot -- we know this also from his own testimony of the various European mistresses -- but that he didn't drink (or possibly that he didn't combine the drinking with the mistresses) or gamble.

Brenda

I quite agree. I am sure Rochester was quite adept at being a "ladies' man." It is, however, a natural human characteristic to fill the void when one is desperate. Literature, the study of human nature, reveals that we will often attempt to replace something we have lost--and sometimes not in the most prudent method. Rochester's quest for someone to love [who would love him] was so typical. Consider the C&W song, "Looking for Love in all the Wrong Places." And I am fully cognizant that Rochester was cruel to Jane in many instances; however, once again, I will argue that it was necessary. Jane was not accustom to the kindness of strangers; she was much more familiar with indifference or even cruelty. It was wise of Rochester to study her as he did and with his 20+ years of experience in the REAL WORLD, he was infinitely superior in his assessments. And if you are a true JE fan, you will have already gone through their relationship in a detective fashion --and discovered that no matter what he says to her at the end [when he is discovered & pleads his case], he knew EXACTLY what her character is and was--without doubt, he knew what her answer would have been should he have been so foolish as to lay his true situation out before her. Go back and reread the gypsy scene. Rochester was astute in his assessment of her character. I believe that because he was so desperately in love with Jane, he was willing to gamble. Reread his prayer to God in the garden under the chestnut tree when he proposes. He--like all true Byronic heroes--believes he answers to a different standard than the norm. He, and I will quote, "inflexibly pursues his own ends according to his self-generated moral code-against all opposition." This is right out of the Byronic Hero list of characteristics. Rochester is the quintessential Byronic Hero except for one point: his looks. And...once Jane falls in love with him--to her--it no longer matters. Don't persons we ignore get better looking when we get to know them better? Human nature does not change. Rochester, possibly thinking this was his last chance for happiness in this life, gambled with high stakes and lost. However, I never thought he was anything but in love with Jane. He was devastated when she left and only wanted to make sure she was safe and secure. However, being passionate himself, he would have pursued Jane had the solicitor found her --even though he says he would not. He would not have been able to help himself.

I apologize for the length of this posting, but I am once again teaching this fantastic novel!

dissipation was used to describe overindulging in the pursuit of pleasure by physical methods-but usually with willing partners. It did not refer only to sexual activities-it also applied to drink, gambling-but as a search for pleasure with no intent to hurt others. (although the occasional illegitimate child, heirloom jewels given to lower-class mistresses and family fortune-losing were bad things....) Although it horrified the morally upright, when aristocratic young men did it, their fond, over-indulgent but silly mothers might excuse it as "sowing their wild oats." These were the young men whom fine young women thought they could reform. If the title was right.
debauched carried a serious overtone of evil-pursuing pleasure in a way that showed no care of self or others-purchasing 12 year old virgins, seducing and betraying other men's wives, defrauding widows and orphans, poisoning oneself with alcohol and opium...the mad, bad and dangerous that no sensible father would consider for his daughter. The seducer in Dangerous Liaisons was debauched. The pain he caused brought him pleasure.
So Rochester, as he pointedly draws the difference to describe his past behaviors, did probably combine all the "pleasures available to a wealthy man" but in moderation and convinced that all his playmates were happy to be there.

Are you a Victorian literature instructor? I was enthralled with the detail of your definitions. Language has evolved a great deal since the 19th Century. Although the language has evolved--the social patterns certainly have not. Early on, Rochester tells Jane that "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." He acknowledges his past mistakes and admits to her [at this very early phase of their relationship] "I am a trite commonplace sinner, hackneyed in all the poor petty dissipations with which the rich and worthless try to put on life." I believe here...Rochester admits that he has contempt for his class ["rich and worthless"] because he does not completely blame himself for his plight. Arranged marriages to keep younger sons from becoming penniless was not uncommon. The problems of England's inheritance laws [entail]created situations that required marriages for reasons of survival. It is not as if the gentry class was reared to "do" anything except manage. And this problem was well into society before Brontë published her novel. Charlotte Turner Smith, poet, was introduced at St. James Court at the ripe old age of 12 because her father needed to marry a fairly young woman of substantial means to save the family property. Mr. Turner felt that after his young daughter had effectively "run" the household, she would not be open to having a step-mother who was only a few years her senior. She was presented at court at 12 and married by 15. [Entered the British canon in 2002] This is when the gentry began marrying into the upper middle class [who earned their money] and found their manners and perspectives shockingly rude. ccrdmrbks--do let me know your connection to JE. Thanks, Chiz

This is to SheriZ6,

I like your symbolism of 'jaundiced eye' when speaking of how you view Rochester now! When I was a teen I thought he was sort of romantic but there was an edge I didn't really 'get'. Now, though I watch the version with William Hurt as Rochester that belongs to my daughter, I find myself thinking how fortunate he is that she looks at him instead of the other way around.

A little teasing, mischief, flirting is great. Rochester seems bent on making her uncomfortable, unsure, defensive and insecure. Plus!, I didn't like the way he cared for his wife's little girl. Coming from a background such as Jane did I would think that in itself would have put her off of Rochester. ...perhaps I'm just pmsing and my own eye is jaundiced today. Maybe I need more caffiene and some chocolate.

Enjoying this post quite a bit.
Kim

One other thing...Heathcliff! Talk about growing up and seeing people different...he was romantic when he was young but rather than learn from his mistreatment at Kathy's hands he demeans the woman he should have gladly been happy with. When they walk on the moor at the end I find myself wishing that his wife would slap her hands together and think now! For a real life! How many people waste their lives, some part of it at least, mourning for someone who has no value of their life, no appreciation and miss out on what's out there. Thats it...had to mention it is all..K

I hope everybody is going to watch the Masterpiece Theater production of JANE EYRE this weekend on their PBS station? It got quite a good review in today's NY Times.

Mr. Rochester took care of Adele better than Mrs. Reed took care of the young Jane. Adele lived in Rochester's house with her own servant and her own governess; Jane got farmed out to a crappy school where everyone hoped she would die of typhus.

Brenda

What time is it on? And what day?

I recently tried to re-read "Wuthering Heights" and just could not get into it. I abandoned this former romantic favorite, wondering what the fuss had been over Heathcliff when I read it as a girl. Perhaps most of us become realists as we age?

Chiz-I'm an elementary school teacher, a wordsmith, and a voracious reader. I love words; their definitions, denotations and connotations. The shades of difference between words usually used as synonyms fascinates me. I am famous for turning a 10 minute vocabulary lesson into a half-hour. My only connection to JE is one of several re-reads.

Brenda I just saw a commercial for the BBC production to be shown Sunday . I can't wait to see it. My favorite is the Timothy Dalton of 20 years ago.
Here is a link to this one. I think it is a two-parter so I'v set my recorder. BBC has a nice site with lots of photos also

Here is a link that might be useful: Masterpiece Theatre : Jane Eyre

Well??

Saw it last night. What did you all think? I very much enjoyed Toby Stephens as Mr. Rochester much more than I did William Hurt, though he is a great actor himself. My few disappointments are that they didn't really develop the friendship between Jane and Helen. Where was the scene in which poor Jane had to stand on a chair for hours on end and the talk they received from one of the teachers about their lives, the great show of faithfulness where Jane demands her hair be cut if Helen's is? Where is Helen's speech on her deathbed? I was ready for a really great cry! I felt cheated...:(
On the other hand, I really liked this Jane a lot. She was plain, sober, practical yet able to smile. Many of the versions have her so sober that I have a hard time liking her very much. I thought this actress was great. Can't wait to hear what everyone else felt.
Kim

There was a great deal left out of the presentation. I think if one hadn't read the book, one would be clueless. Knowing those things that weren't there, you could fill in. However, for a much-compressed presentation, I found it good.

I liked it. I agree that both Jane and Mr. Rochester were improved by smiles and a little playfulness.

The girl playing Jane really out-acted the one playing Rochester IMO!

I was sure glad I didn't live in those times in that freezing place, it looked so cold and all those bare shoulders & bare feet made me shudder LOL!

Pat

I thought the last night's production really gave a sense of atmosphere and place. I was also disappointed that so little was shown about Jane's early years and friendship with Helen Burns. It was good to see my still favorite part of the book (from my first reading at age 10) of Jane standing up to Rev. Brocklehurst.

I liked it too. I liked Jane and Rochester. Actually the old Orsen Welles portrayal was a litlle more romantic in parts. I still like the Dalton best I think it was between, 6-8 hours TV Time, but I'm glad they are presenting this. I think Rochester really masqueraded as the gypsy, but it worked anyway. It will be interesing to see how they do the "Jane. . . Jane" scene.

I loved the Orsen Wells movie. I thought he was perfect because he wasn't really handsome, but had charisma. I think this Rochester is too good looking. It bothered me a lot. I only saw the 1st hour and I'm not sure I'll watch the rest. I did like Jane, but I agree if you don't know the story you'd be clueless.

I meant to say for Frieda and you other gothic lovers, wasn't that portrayal of Jane in her long white nightgown going down a creepy stone hallway carrying her candle just perfect?

Leel and Granjan, interesting for you to say that someone who hadn't read the book would be clueless. I hadn't been over here looking at the thread because I hadn't read the book. I did catch most of the Masterpiece Theatre presentation, however, and decided to check out what you guys were thinking about the novel. I didn't have trouble following it at all. Has Jane Eyre invaded our culture to the extent that we all know the story whether or not we've read the book? I'm enjoying the broadcast very much. How fun is it that Pam Tillis who plays Laura Thyme on "Rosemary and Thyme" is Grace Poole?

I was rather disappointed in the mini series. For one thing - my favorite part as a child was Janes friendship with Helen, and I really did think it got short shifted. I missed the deathbed speech too, but the part where Jane crawls into bed with her was just as I remembered.

I didn't care for the actress playing Jane. She acted like a little bird - yes she smiled, but I thought she was too wimpy for the Rochester that the book portrays. He'd never have given her the time of day, I suspect. Tho I do think that given how Rochester is portrayed here, they fit just fine.

Lowood was realistically horrible, wasn't it? The caps and outfits those poor girls had to wear!
I feel that the actors were all too good-looking. When Jane tells Rochester that he is not handsome, you want to exclaim, "Honey, are you blind?"
All those gloomy corridors in Thornfield must have been the back 'servants' area, because the drawing rooms seemed bright enough. All reading and writing must have been done in daylight in that era, because you never could have managed the eyestrain by candlelight!
The only problem with all those stone walls and parapets in Thornfield is, how does it ever burn down? There's nothing flammable!

Brenda

I finally had the opportunity to watch it tonight, having taped it earlier.

I told my husband that we were going to watch it tonight and he exclaimed,Â" IsnÂt this the 49th version of Jane Eyre that you have seen?" Now that may be an exaggeration but I have seen all the movie versions of the novel. For me it is like having a vase of all my favourite flowers and hiring ten different but talented artists painting it. All unique interpretations of my flowers, but each one enjoyable for its perspective. That is the way I looked at this production; and I did enjoy it tremendously. But IÂve liked them all for various reasons.

I thought the atmosphere was very well done. It captured that solitary feeling that was so very much part of JaneÂs earlier years. For example, I really felt her emotions when she first arrived at Thornfield  that lantern was the only comfort in what was a strange and intimidating environment. So much remained dark and mysterious, illuminated only by candlelight or fire.

As for Rochester, he was younger and more vulnerable looking than my mindÂs version but that was OK  they had definite chemistry, so I forgive JaneÂs only claim to plainness which was heavy eyebrows. IÂve always liked the bedroom scene after Jane rescues Rochester from the fire, "You are leaving me, now, must you?" I told my husband that I would have been totally weak-willed and would have tackled ole Rochester to the bed at that point and, alas, the novel would have ended then, being far, far removed from the classic that it is today.

They cheated on the gypsy in this version, though. I prefer Rochester in drag.

IÂm glad I taped it so that I can rewatch it . And if someone decides to produce Version #50, IÂll set my TV to record.

I think the Brontes and even Jane Austen were the grandmothers of today's romance novels.

I missed it. Darn. A friend of mine called yesterday telling me about this airing. I had recommended the story to him earlier this year after finally reading it myself and he so enjoyed it too.

I definitely have a date with the tube Sunday night for part 2. Does anyone know of the possibility of a replay on this Masterpiece Theatre version so I can catch up on part 1?

It was on our PBS station last night. I watched the second half of the first episode. I stumbled upon it after The Gilmore Girls ended. Jane was just arriving at Thornfield. Sorry I missed the Lowood part.

It is neither the worst nor the best version I have ever seen, but I would say it is definitely worth watching. My vote for most faithful was an earlier BBC version, the Timothy Dalton-Zelah Clarke version filmed in the 1980's. He was definitely too handsome, but otherwise I liked it.

We once counted up versions on imbd.com. I would not be surprised to learn that this is the most frequently filmed novel of all time.

Rosefolly

Wow!!I'm glad I didn't miss the last part of the Masterpiece Theater production of Jane Eyre tonight. It's a toss up for me: this one and Timothy Dalton's. I loved them both, I liked they way they "fleshed" out Edward and Jane.

Great entertainment!! Hope you all liked it.

Yes, but what's with the rolling around on the bed and in the grass? That's not my Jane!

Agh! I really disliked the 'amnesia' and the flashbacks! And wasn't the death of Bertha Mason affectless and kind of remote? No, the real Jane would never have indulged in so much snogging. The second half of this was definitely less appealing that the first.

Brenda

It's been several years since you write about "Jane Eyre" but I just joined the club, and I thought that I would comment. I have first read Charlotte Bronte's masterpiece when I was in high school. In my fifth decade I read Juliet Barker's defintive biography, "The Brontes" and then I read every book by Charlotte, Anne and Emily that I could get my hands. The sister's knew that they would not get a publisher if they wrote as women, so they wrote as Acton, Currer and Ellis Belle. Writing was not considered a suitable profession for a woman. Subsequently I taught a class on Anne's "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall," and if you think that the reviews of "Jane Eyre" were harsh, you should read what the reviewers had to say about Anne's book. In spite of my affection for "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall - it is a love story that frankly treats alcohoism and spousal abuse - I believe that "Jane Eyre" was the finest novel of the Victorian period and that takes into account Jane Austen's masterful writing. "Jane Eyre" is a marvelous combination of a love story and a thread of gothic tales. From the first sentence, in which the ten year old Jane describes a day so dreary that a walk was out of the question to the adult Jane's description of her first encounter with Mr. Rochester, the novel grips the reader. It is magical.

Frank