How does rochester lose his sight

Vinyet Cuadra Supporter. How old is Jane Eyre at the end of the novel? Takashi Letamendi Supporter. Where was Jane Eyre filmed? Adalgisa Boddicker Supporter.

Is Jane Eyre based on a true story? Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre , one of the best-loved novels in the English language, may have been inspired by a real person. A Jane Eyre lived in Yorkshire, a few miles from the Brontes' home, and was known among Charlotte Bronte's circle, new research by a retired teacher has established.

Jutta Uzhinov Beginner. Why is Charlotte Bronte important? It blended moral realism with Gothic elements. Her other novels included Shirley and Villette Arrieta Killer Beginner.

What is the movie Jane Eyre about? As an orphaned child, Jane Eyre Mia Wasikowska is first cruelly abused by her aunt, then cast out and sent to a charity school. Though she meets with further abuse, she receives an education, and eventually takes a job as a governess at the estate of Edward Rochester Michael Fassbender. Jane and Rochester begin to bond, but his dark moods trouble her. When Jane uncovers the terrible secret Rochester has been hiding, she flees and finds temporary refuge at the home of St.

John Rivers. Ask A Question. Co-authors: Jane and Rochester marry with no witnesses other than the parson and the church clerk. Jane writes to her cousins with the news. John never acknowledges what has happened, but Mary and Diana write back with their good wishes. Jane writes that she is narrating her story after ten years of marriage to Rochester, which she describes as inexpressibly blissful. They live as equals, and she helps him to cope with his blindness.

After two years, Rochester begins to regain his vision in one eye, and when their first child—a boy—is born, Rochester is able to see the baby. Jane writes that Diana and Mary have both found husbands and that St.

John went to India as he had planned. She notes that in his last letter, St. John claimed to have had a premonition of his own approaching death. She does not believe that she will hear from St. She closes her book with a quote from his letter, in which he begs the Lord Jesus to come for him quickly. At dawn the next morning, Jane rises. John slides a note under Jane's door, reminding her to resist temptation. It is the first of June, yet the day is chilly and overcast.

Jane wanders the house, thinking about the previous night's visitation: Was it a delusion? It seemed to come from her, not from the external world. At breakfast, she tells Diana and Mary she'll be away at least four days.

She catches a coach at Whitcross, the same one she road from Thornfield a year earlier. Alighting from the coach, Jane finds herself again on Rochester's lands. She is anxious to see him again and hurries the two miles from the coach stop to the house, worrying that he may be in Europe. Like a lover who wishes to catch a glimpse of his lover's face without waking her, then finds she is "stone dead," Jane is appalled by the sight that awaits her: Thornfield is a blackened ruin.

What is the story behind this disaster, Jane wonders? Unlikely, but I dare say if she had, then he would have made his proposal there and then. Because the point of the whole exercise was, after all, to find out what she really thinks of him. So, Mr Rochester, you say, is ugly. Where does it say that again in the book? The words Charlotte uses to describe his looks are dark, stern, heavy, broad, square, grim, decisive, strong, firm etc.

In other words, he is no Leonardo di Caprio or Orlando Bloom and he would never be chosen for a boy band. Neither does he fulfil the notion of beauty of his time, namely smooth, regular, harmonious and symmetrical features, blond curls and soft, white skin.

He looks rugged, weather-beaten, careworn and virile. Never once does Jane call him ugly. I would not deny that he is vain. And besides, besides, besides, even if he were ugly, what of it? What else did you level against him? Cruel treatment of Blanche Ingram? The same Blanche Ingram who, mercenary fortune hunter that she is, receives him with coldness after she hears a rumor that he is not really a billionaire but just pretty well-off?

Or did you mean it was cruel to Jane? All he ever sees is her calm, composed outside. So, being self-centered and reckless, he tried to see if he could make her jealous. Does he deserve a kick in the shin for that? Does it make him an asshole and psychopath? I hardly think so. He wants to have some degree of certainty that she loves him before he lays his heart at her feet. Because, you know, women have hurt him in the past. The main point, of course, is Bertha. So, he is a bad man because he locks her up in the attic with a personal attendant.

Either to let her roam free to attack people and set fire to things or to let her rot in a mental asylum. Or perhaps he could have abandoned her in the Caribbean. Rochester claims that he does the best he can, and as I said above, it is hard to conceive what he could have done differently. Besides, I trust his sincerity. This may seem strange, since he has kept up such a massive deceit for such a long time, but it is not at all paradoxical if you consider that he is always willing to admit his faults and does not spare with self-reproach.

Now the truth is out, he would not invent a history just to make himself look better. Did it look different from her perspective? Of course it would, but given that she really is mentally unstable, her perceptions would be warped to say the least, in any case, they would not be more reliable than his. Having said this, I did like Wide Sargasso Sea. I thought it was a delightful book in its own right, fascinating and beautifully atmospheric.

However, it is what in fanfiction circles is called an Alternative Universe story, that is, a story in which certain parameters are different from the ones set out in the original work. It does more than reverse perspectives, it redefines the characters. I think this was a fallacy. Furthermore, she also portraits some bona fide English people in a hugely unflattering way — old Mr Rochester, the Reed family, or Mr Brocklehurst.

Do we call her therefore an anglophobe? To come back to what I said at the start: Rochester has plenty of faults, there is no doubt about that. Perfect literary characters like Mr Knightley are fantasy creatures; Rochester is far more realistic.

There is much in him one might want to complain about, but in reality we do not like or love people for their lack of faults, we like or love them for their positives, for their merits. And Edward Fairfax Rochester has bucketloads of merits.

Here they come:. He is disinterested. He has nothing to gain from bringing up Adele, he would have incurred no reproach if he had disowned her, but that is just a marginal issue in this context.

The central point, the one that sticks out like Mount Everest, is that at a time when people in his position habitually made matches based on connection and fortune, he is willing to marry a woman who can give him absolutely nothing in the way of worldly advantages. Darcy feels he can overcome these very substantial obstacles after much struggle and mental anguish. Darcy has to swallow his pride before he proposes to a woman of such low connections as a minor esquire and a country attorney.

That alone would make him admirable. But that is not all. He is great company. So much of his conversation with Jane is delightful banter — just think of the scene where he gives her money for the journey to Gateshead. He can admit his faults. He asks for forgiveness, so sincerely that Jane gives it instantly. He can humble himself, he reproaches himself, and I think much of his gruffness and brooding stems from his dissatisfaction with himself.

This was cowardly. He is generous. He treats his employees well. He pays Grace Poole generously and is prepared to increase her salary even further.

No doubt he knew that she had started the fire. It would have been the perfect opportunity to be rid of her. But no. He has an abundant capacity for loving. Behold this, all ye commitment phobics of the world. He respects Jane as a full human being who can make her own decisions. When Jane doubts the sincerity of his proposal, he handles the situation admirably.

I will be still too. Yes, he tries to persuade her to become his mistress, though this is not how he perceives it. Still, he does not coerce her. How easy it would have been for him to be patronising.

But here is a man who truly respects his wife. Would I want to marry Edward Rochester in real life? Probably not. He does come with a great deal of baggage, and I am not as selfless as Jane. But to her, selflessness is in her nature, it suits her. She was even willing to accept a premature death as the probable outcome of going to India with St John Rivers.

And there I have at last arrived at my ultimate point: Yes, there is a creepy and deeply disturbing character in the novel and I would be seriously worried for any woman who fancies him. I could no longer talk or laugh freely when he was by. St John has the nerve to define who Jane is. What would I call such a man? The words asshole, creep and psychopath spring to mind…. I am amazed that people are reading my essay and commenting four years after its publication.

Thank you all for your feedback! Just to clarify and emphasize once more: I am a big fan of the novel, and of Bronte! Also: this essay is meant to be a bit cheeky, and the comedic tone should be taken into consideration. In my current state of acute Rochester fangirling, I am liable to failing to see the humour… ;-. Nowadays he is younger than me. Well articulated.

As a fellow Rochester fan, I now love him even more! I came across this essay about a year ago, and it inspired me to start my own blog — something I only got around to yesterday, and am still learning how to work! How did I miss this??? Excellent, excellent piece, although I have always found Rochester compelling as opposed to creepy.

Got the cheeky humor, but the responses are fascinating. You either love or hate Rochester. Virtuella — you nailed it beautifully! I was starting to lose faith in our cross-dressing, marriage-ignoring hero, but like supergram i think i love him even more now. John Rivers — a man who lives to celebrate the death of everything Jane and we, perspicacious readers hold dear — freedom, spirit, and love.

So well-said! They were worried that he would hurt her somehow, all that passion might make him violent??? John offers that makes me love and root for him, and that makes him, finally, worthy of Jane.

How dare you insult rochester! Keeping the crazy wife locked up was by far more humane treatment than most people with mental illness received then. Something creepy you missed out though is the fact that he kept a vial of drugs in his dresser for emergencies. What was this… Cocaine? Not sure, and though cocaine was common and relatively acceptable in these days… Stashing it away for an emergency is slightly creepy creep.

Ita incumbent on me up state that Mr Rochester kept his wife in far better comfort than she would have had at any Asylum in the 19th century let alone the early portion of it. Anyone arguing the point that Bertha was mitreated is very incorrect. Virtuella, you broke it! Charlotte was proud of you! You did understand the character perfectly! I so love this!! I completely agree!!! That sad thing is this story is like a Disney movie compared to Wuthering Heights!

By a strange serendipity, there is an event going on starting Saturday that crosses the Atlantic and is a week-long Jean Rhys read-in. You can find it on Twitter, and hook into the details at:. Rather than getting an annulment, he carts her off to his estate in England where he locks her up in the attic while he gallivants around out of town chasing tail.

Apparently, no other woman has ever been good enough for him since. How is this just now popping up in my news feed? Rochester is a monster, until you parse his choices. For example, keeping a severely mentally deranged woman locked up in the penthouse. It is supposed to be horrifying, until you consider the alternative. Madhouses were considerably worse than anything Bertha had to contend with, and she was too homicidal and nymphomaniacal to be allowed to roam about the shrubberies.

You know. On him. So, actually, his cruelty was actually an act of self-annihilating mercy. Bronte wants you to understand Rochester without losing sight of the fact that he is guilty, guilty, guilty—to forgive him, but not too much.

Hence the bbq, which removes both the technical obstacle Bertha and the moral obstacle, for Rochester willingly goes through the fire to redeem his hated wife who is, after all, innocent by reason of insanity and is thereby redeemed himself. He is humbled and Jane is able to lead him to a new life, using her own druthers—a preferable alternative to being lead into bigamy and goodness knows what else!