There. I said it. And I had to say it to someone, because I cannot write that in my essay, or I'll probably get in to trouble. Thanks for listening.
Yeah, this probably isn't the right place for it, but it is.. because this is an OPEN DISCUSSION and I am WRITING an essay. Yeah it's a stretch I'm still wrong, but I sitll hate Jane Eyre.
It's on how the plot of Jane Eyre is driven foreward, and how foreshadowing is presented by the use of the supernatural.
The funnest, most interesting topic I could think of, and it still sucks.
ah.. it feels good to say that somewhere. THANKS hatrack!
-leaf
Posted by autumnmuse (Member # 2136) on :
Actually, this post is appropriate to the "Discussing Published Books and Hooks" forum, but that's okay.
There are things in Jane Eyre that frustrate me, and I probably won't ever read it again. But I'm INTIMATELY familiar with it because I co-wrote an in-depth curriculum based on it. I'm glad that's over though.
And I'm not a big fan of the Bronte sisters in general. Jane Eyre was by far the best of the bunch.
My favorite piece of Victorian literature is Pride & Prejudice, which of course also has it's share of readers who hate it. But for me, nothing can take away the intense pleasure I get from reading her wit and barbs into human nature. Go Jane Austen!
Posted by MaryRobinette (Member # 1680) on :
<pointless nitpick> Um...Pride and Prejudice is Regency fiction, not Victorian. </pointless nitpick>
Posted by autumnmuse (Member # 2136) on :
You're right, Mary. I have a terrible tendency to lump all 19th century fiction writers together. Bad me!!!
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 3228) on :
At least it proves that even long-enduring classics draw criticism.
Posted by Smaug (Member # 2807) on :
I hated it too--couldn't even finish it.
Posted by rcorporon (Member # 2879) on :
Am I alone in liking it?
It was the only thing in my first year English course in Female Lit that I enjoyed reading.
I've read it a few times over the years, usually while on vacation.
Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 3031) on :
i like P and P but not Sense and Sensiblity
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 3228) on :
I liked "Jane Eyre" and didn't mind the supernatural elements in it and "Wuthering Heights" but "Jane Eyre" did have some coincidences in the plot.
Posted by ethersong (Member # 3216) on :
I liked it...read it twice. I thought it was well written. And I don't see what's wrong with supernatural events to move the story line along. Just cause its not anywhere near fantasy doesn't mean you can't throw in a couple of wierd stuff in to spice things up a bit.
Posted by pjp (Member # 3211) on :
I'm not a big fan of so called 'classics' and other 'authoritative' works. Shakespeere, Twain, Tolkein, ... They just don't do it for me.
Tolkein, for example, may be the father of the fantasy genre, but I found the trilogy to be unfinishable. I didn't make it through book 2. The Hobbit was a good read though.
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 3228) on :
Just came across this again and thought of a sketch from the British comedy "A Bit of Frye and Laurie," in which a customer brings "Jane Eyre" back to the bookshop complaining it's "all balls."
Bookshop owner: Balls in what sense?
Customer: Balls in the sense of...balls! (He picks a passage out of the book and quotes,) 'Reader, I married him.' What's that supposed to mean?
Bookshop owner: That's the narrator, Jane Eyre, telling the reader she married Mr. Rochester.
Customer: It's bad enough reading this stuff without some dead bit¢h calling you 'reader' all the time!
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
I love the old school style, even though I don't necessarily love everything in that school.
Posted by GalaxyGal (Member # 4755) on :
I'll tell you what I liked and didn't on an emotional level. Now that I'm older, I might like them better if I were to read them again, but then again, maybe not. I'm skipping around the eras.
Liked Jane Eyre. Absolutely hated the Invisible Man. Loved The Inferno. Despised Little Women. Hated Grapes of Wrath. Found the Great Gatsby overrated. Loved Catcher in the Rye. Loved To Kill A Mockingbird. Hated Billy Bud. Hated Great Expectations. Liked Tom Sawyer. Didn't like Huckleberry Finn. Hated Moby Dick. Loved The Illiad. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar was good after someone "translated" it for me (which pretty much goes for all of Shakespeare). Liked Lost Horizons. Pride and Prejudice was OK.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Sometimes I wish we could get discussions like this going on the Books forum...
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 3228) on :
Anyone catch the most recent adaptation on PBS?
Posted by Mystic (Member # 2673) on :
I like "Jane Eyre"...may my high school English teacher never read this post.
Posted by mommiller (Member # 3285) on :
Love the Brontes and Austen.
So much emotion, character study, plot, as well as a discourse on humanity packed into them.
Yeah, the latest PBS adaptation has me reaching for these favs yet again.
Also, too, this was the only thing I've watched on T.V in about three years. Shocked the kids, I'll tell you.
Posted by BruceWayne1 (Member # 4604) on :
pjp, I am so glad to hear you type that about the LOR. I thougth it nothing short of heresy to say out loud, but I couldn't make it through even the first book. I LOVED the movies, but the books (which I tried to read before the movies came out) just couldn't hold my attention. and I did like the Hobbit too. I wonder why.
Posted by Verloren (Member # 3916) on :
I hated Jane Eyre the first time I read it. However, in subsequent readings, I have grown to like it more and more (maybe it's growing on me, or maybe my sanity is slipping ).
Also, perhaps part of the reason for the dislike of LOTR is that Tolkien was more interested in defining a language system (he was predominantly a linguist) than in creating well-rounded characters and realistic plot. Just don't ever try to read the Silmarillion - very tough to get through for non-linguist types.
Anyway, I also want to add that I don't believe it is a prereq to love every "classic" or "father of" piece. I do feel it is useful to have at least read them though and to have an idea of the plot and style.
Happy reading!
-V
Posted by BruceWayne1 (Member # 4604) on :
no kidding.. The Silmarilian is Numbers, Deuteronomy, Leviticus all rolled into one. Relax I didn't just bash the Bible, it is just not good reading for sport in places.
Posted by rickfisher (Member # 1214) on :
Hmm. The first time I read LotR I thought about half of it was really boring, and about half was okay. A little bit was really good. But it stayed with me. The second time (why did I read it a second time, anyway? Partly because I couldn't resist buying the beautiful boxed leather-covered one-volume edition, which was only $35 back then, and partly because, even though I hadn't cared for it that much, the story really stayed with me) I liked it more, though I still wish it moved faster. And Tom Bombadil still seems a waste of space. But the book IS worth reading, and even re-reading.
The Silmarillion, on the other hand, I loved first time. Maybe it's just that I was older, maybe that I'd always liked mythology. BUT--I have to admit that the second part, the Valaquenta, really, really drags, and the second reading doesn't help it any. I think that's where most people who try to read the book get bogged down. It's probably better to consider that part simply as a reference to who the Valar were, and what their individual characteristics were. That way you can skip it altogether, and then look back at it if you want clarification on something. But the first part, while a bit slow, is very short and also quite interesting; and the Silmarillion itself is wonderful. It made me want to read LotR for a third time, and when I did lots of little references suddenly made sense. World-building is not and never will be my main interest, but really, the man was incredible.
PS: (to bring this post back on topic) I don't hate Jane Eyre. But that may be because I haven't read it yet. I know all about Rochester and what he had in his attic, and stuff like that, but I haven't actually read the doggone thing yet. I keep meaning to.
[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited January 30, 2007).]
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
At this late stage, I can't remember whether it was "Jane Eyre" or "Wuthering Heights" that was assigned reading in high school...whichever one I read, I didn't read the other. Offhand, I can't think of any work of literature I was assigned in school that I loved---except a couple I read well before assignation, like "Childhood's End." Fortunately all my reading is now for pleasure.
If I'd'a been beta reading "Lord of the Rings" for Tolkien, I'd'a told him to cut Bombadil and the Barrow-wights chapter. Interesting though they are, they're not important to the overall narrative. (You'd have to have the hobbits get their swords in some other way, though.)
However much they strayed from the True Faith, the movies were interesting for the viewer who'd never read the books to watch---the vast majority. (I was amused to see some Bombadil material incorporated into the Treebeard scenes.) But the books were better.
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 3228) on :
I have a standing promise to several people to read LOTR, which I've been unable to keep yet. One is a friend who named her children after the book. The other is my brother-in-law who almost kicked me out of the theater--to which we'd arrived a full hour early to see the third movie--when he learned I hadn't read the books. I haven't even seen the second movie. One of my goals is to force myself to do all this before I die.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Tolkien writes with a very fusty narrator, if you know what I mean (no, not anything dirty, look it up you perverts). It can be hard for the reader who doesn't enjoy that kind of writing, which is rarely encountered in conventional fiction.
That's part of the joy and immense realism of the story, the narrator just doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would be making all this stuff up out of whole cloth. But it can be hard to get past the, "I'm going to tell you this story as if it were the dullest bit of irrelevant history you've ever read" aspect for some.
Posted by starsin (Member # 4081) on :
Let me put it this way: the only book I've read in High School English classes that I've liked was Farenheit 451.
The list includes, but is not limited to:
Jane Eyre (fell asleep reading it one day...that's how boring I found it) Brave New World Lord of the Flies (that book disturbed me a little bit...)
and a few others, but due to some massive brain flatulence, I've gone and forgotten most of them...
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
I really liked Lord of the Flies.
Posted by rickfisher (Member # 1214) on :
Yeah, so did I. But I didn't read it as part of an English class assignment.
Posted by Max Masterson (Member # 4799) on :
I would have liked Lord Of The Flies but I identifyed too much with 'piggy' lol. (I wore glasses as a kid)
The 'book' I really enjoyed doing at school was Macbeth. I still read it about once a year and have been to see it done quite a few times. The book I hated doing at school was To Kill A Mockingbird. I just couldn't find any interest in any of the people.
).