So, Ms. Rouleau stumbled upon this lovely article online this weekend: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/jane-eyre-lessons-_n_4101000.html
Your job, in the comments, is to critique it.
Now, keep in mind, it is what it is. It's a fluff piece--by no means is it accurate literary criticism. You CAN keep the following questions in mind:
- Does it do the novel justice?
- Is it accurate?
- Are there any inconsistencies?
Respond in the comments and remember the general rules of bloggy blogs.
Thanks!
This article from The Huffington Post is a reasonable commentary on the paradoxical role of Jane Eyre as a female heroine. While far from a professional literary analysis, the article does remain true to its source in most cases. It presents its evidence with frequent support from the text, using a number of passages and quotes to support its premise of Jane as a model for modern women. However, the article is not without its flaws. While it does present specific events in Jane’s life, it offers minimal context from those events, relying solely upon the passages to enunciate its messages. In addition, a slight inconsistency occurs in the article’s third point, where the author states that Jane teaches modern women to directly ask a man on a date if they like him—in contrast to Jane, who was frequently withdrawn about her love for Rochester, and who only admitted her affection when he himself did so. In addition, the article offers very little context about St. John’s proposal to Jane, not even mentioning his name. This detracts from the circumstances that occurred between St. John and Jane, as the article does not reference his motives for marrying her, or their relationship as cousins. However, despite these small errors, I feel that this article is a fairly accurate representation of Jane Eyre—not bad for a Huffington Post article!
ReplyDeleteI agree with David that there is a flaw in the articles third point. Jane only confesses to her love for Rochester when he tells her the engagement with Blanche Ingram was fake and he really loves her. This article seems to focus on Jane and Rochester and not with St. John or her long lost cousins Mary and Diana. Although I think this article is accurate to the story it seems to leave out some important details. For example, in the second point about "your will shall decide your destiny," the article states that Jane has no family or money and while that may be true at the beginning of the novel it is not true at the end of the novel. Jane inherits her uncle's fortune and also finds out she has been living with her cousins and did not even know it. I really like the last point because when Jane is offered a proposal by St. John he says "you are formed for labour, not for love" (p.409). Admitting in this scene that he does not love her. Overall, I liked the article because it takes the novel and turns it into advice that Jane teaches to all women!
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of inconsistencies, I noticed that number five was inaccurate in saying that Jane grew out of her negativity. Although she is, for the most part, positive, Jane is still susceptible to pessimism, even to the point of physical incapacitation. This is vehemently displayed in the Q2 from Friday, in which seized by her anxieties. Not only is she worried about her past, which the paragraph claims she has let go of, but she fears imagined future events as well. While Jane usually has a positive mindset, she is not uninhibited by negativity.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with David to a certain extent. I agree that Zoe Triska does a decent job supporting her observations with textual evidence, the evidence is limited. She backs up her claims with evidence, however, the evidence used is often no more than a short statement with little substance. She provided little to no context to her quotes. I disagree with David that Triska's third statement "Tell the guy you want to date him already!" is inconsistent. I believe that Triska's point is that if Jane had expressed her love for Rochester, both of their lives would have been easier; not saying that Jane did profess her love for him first. Also, when saying that these are lessons to learn from Jane, and in my opinion, she is saying in the third point, to learn from Jane's words not necessarily her actions. Also, I felt there was no reason to mention the situation with St. John in the third passage because she never really loved St. John. Mentioning her missionary cousin she almost married does not really belong in the statement about professing one's love. The issue I have with the third statement is that Triska's whole point is that Jane should have confessed her love for him when she developed feelings for him. If Triska was insinuating that Jane does profess her love first then I would definitely agree with David, because she does not do this. Also, she should be aware that Jane could never confess her love for him first because that is not how their relationship works. Jane has already set herself above him, when they first met, Rochester leveled it when he became her boss. They have witty conversations, however, Rochester still tries to remain the master to Jane; if Jane had said she loved him first, he would have been more emasculated and the relationship could have been tarnished. I feel that she does a good job with acknowledging the lessons that can be taken from the quotes from "Jane Eyre," however, the arguments need to be a little more thorough with background information and support.
ReplyDeletewhoops i wrote a lot
DeleteI agree with Kevin in terms of the third point. The statement Triska sited depicts discusses the pain felt by not saying how you feel. She is using the relationship between Rochester and Jane as an example of what not to do. I do not see Triska twisting these passages to suit her own needs. Most of what she writes is not taken too far out of context. I believe that in number five when Triska talks about growing out of negativity she is talking about Jane as a whole. Jane does not insist on dwelling on her past at the end of the novel as she used to at Lowood. Jane learned from Helen and her schooling that the best thing to do was to overcome the adversity faced and accept the suffering she must accept. While everyone is intitled to a low point, such as Jane in the passage we used in the Q2, I truthfully think Triska was correct in her idea that Jane grew out of her adversity. What she writes about Jane Eyre is true from what we have discussed in class. Jane speaks her mind, is very independent and from 1847 standpoint is a very strong woman. I find Triska's points to make sense within the context of what we have read and discussed. The times in which Jane acts less strong then a contemporary woman would I think it is important to remember that Jane was a dependent in the 1840's. During this time, due to her upbringing, certain strengths would not make sense with in this context. These pieces could have been more substantial if they had more evidence but as a fluff piece I find this to be a very sound article.
ReplyDeleteoops the second sentence should read "the statement Triska sited discusses" sorry!
DeleteI agree with everyone generally. The article was a good read, but not without its faults. I especially agree with Kevin, there is little "evidence" given, which is then followed up by a small amount of "analysis" if you will. However, keeping in mind that this is not a literary analysis paper I do think that Triska's article does justice to the novel and the things we all can learn from it. I do think that the third point is a bit of a stretch as Jane did not confess her love to Rochester after having the realization that Triska quoted in her article. I think it would have been more effective if the third "lesson" had been along the lines of not restricting yourself in relation to love because of social roles, or today being "out of one's league". Overall Triska's reflection on the novel is accurate, I just feel that her fan-girling over the book clouded her ability to create concrete "lessons".
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the points that Gianna makes. It appears that the article writer may only have a surface idea about the Novel as a whole. She understands the story, perhaps, in terms of plot alone, and even then, the details provided are scarce, and thus directly lead to some shaky points. Point #3 ignores a lot of the relationship prior to the big plot event of the original professing of love in the garden. Jane hesitated to let Rochester know of her budding feelings prior to the gypsy incident. She had to first come to terms with her idea of freedom before truly being confident in "Telling the guy she wanted to date him already". In the garden seen, it was Rochester who professed his feelings first in the garden. Jane was only the true initiator when she ran from Moor House. Speaking of running from Moor House, it was a clear example of not thinking positively (#5). She felt trapped - St.John put far too much pressure on her, and she just flew away.
ReplyDelete