Skip to main content

What do you think would happen if the climax of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre changed?

I think most readers would agree that the dramatic climax of Jane Eyre occurs just before the most frequently quoted line from this novel; that is to say, "Reader, I married him." The scene just prior to this finds Jane going back to Thornfield to see Rochester, and discovering that he has been injured and blinded in a fire that was set by his wife Bertha. Since his wife has died, Rochester is now free to marry Jane, without worrying about social stigma. But it is here that Jane makes a crucial choice. She could decide not to marry Rochester, who is much older than she, and now also physically disabled. After fleeing Thornfield, becoming lost on the moors, and being taken in by strangers, Jane regains her focus and confidence and realizes that, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, she loves Rochester and must see him again. When she hears about the fire, her sympathy is aroused. It is tempting to think that Jane's decision to marry Rochester is one born of pity. But this crucial scene shows that the two are very much equals; intellectually and emotionally, if no longer physically. 


It's hard to imagine a different ending to this novel. However, it seems plausible that another possible outcome might have been that Jane would decide not to marry Rochester, but to remain his friend. Her deep loyalty to the few people in her life who have been kind to her helps justify the decision she ended up making. But Jane's independence is her most significant quality, and remaining unmarried would also have been a plausible outcome. And yet, her depth of passion and feeling are also strongly featured in this story, and it seems right for her to marry the man she loves in the end.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more