But then there's the rest of the book, which isn't great; it's just there. Jane's school is infested with typhus, Jane meets her long-lost cousin, Jane is tempted to run off and become a missionary: really, how does this stack up to Thornfield? And why does it need to be there at all, other than filling in a necessary gap in time before Rochester can come storming back in on his black horse (figuratively, of course, considering certain events in the plot) and make the story interesting again?
It needs to be there, one might think, because the story isn't about Rochester and Jane; it's about Jane--which would be true. But, if the story is about Jane alone, relegating Rochester to a brief but important incident in Jane's life, then it's not a great story. With her her likable, narratorial qualities, Jane may be a great narrator, but she makes an extremely lousy dynamic character, even if she is involved in a typhus scare.
It needs to be there, one might think, because the story isn't about Rochester and Jane; it's about Jane--which would be true. But, if the story is about Jane alone, relegating Rochester to a brief but important incident in Jane's life, then it's not a great story. With her her likable, narratorial qualities, Jane may be a great narrator, but she makes an extremely lousy dynamic character, even if she is involved in a typhus scare.
Jane is objective, outspoken, and virtuous throughout, which means she's not particularly susceptible to temptations (except those Rochester provides). That means that Rochester is crucial to the real, emotional conflict of the book--crucial to the power of the book. The rest is just Jane being Jane, which may be fun to read, but it doesn't intersect with any real threat, any real conflict of values that lends a great book its electric charge.
The Good... The Bad: Jane Eyre
So what the novel has to its name is rhetorical brilliance, a good episode that doesn't take up nearly a large enough percentage of the page count, and a lot of needless distractions.
The Good... The Bad: Jane Eyre
So what the novel has to its name is rhetorical brilliance, a good episode that doesn't take up nearly a large enough percentage of the page count, and a lot of needless distractions.
There are great books that are structurally unbalanced, even structurally deranged, Don Quixote being maybe the prime example, but even Don Quixote is unusually good about keeping its Quixote chapters strictly separate from its "filler" chapters, allowing the knight to remain his untarnished self throughout its plot, and throughout our memories.
Whereas Bronte, in taking as her narrative logic an episodic structure united by an ideal protagonist, gives her book a larger measure of consistency at the expense of diluting its overall strength. Thus Jane Eyre remains a beautiful sandcastle while it's being experienced, but not one of which much (save its brief heart) remains after the tides of time and memory crash down over its Thornfieldean parapets.
Whereas Bronte, in taking as her narrative logic an episodic structure united by an ideal protagonist, gives her book a larger measure of consistency at the expense of diluting its overall strength. Thus Jane Eyre remains a beautiful sandcastle while it's being experienced, but not one of which much (save its brief heart) remains after the tides of time and memory crash down over its Thornfieldean parapets.
