Oh, That's What Love Is? In That Case, No Thanks!

Jane Eyre's 'Love' for Rochester

This particular topic bothers me. Jane does not marry Rochester until he is crippled and broken. Until he is no longer the man he used to be.

I can accept the following argument as valid: Now that Jane has risen up a bit and Rochester has sunk down a bit they are on equal ground and thus can have an equal relationship and so they can be married finally.

But I don't have to like it. And given my suspicions about Jane's reliability I'm going to call bullshit again. Rochester isn't just humbled, he is maimed. He needs Jane and requires her assistance for everything. She tells us herself that she became and is his right hand.

But you're probably right, having power over someone you once stood in awe of is probably not a big factor for entering into a relationship with them...

Jane does not commit to a relationship until she is in control of that relationship. Jane's inability to understand her own feelings mixed with this grandiose idea she is better than everyone leaves me with an anxious relation to her.

In fact, people should be starting to wonder: why does Byron hate Jane Eyre so much?

I honestly don't know. It rubs me the wrong way. I am endlessly fascinated by how many people like this book. My bottom line is that I don't trust it and I think a better story could have been told. Am I going to write that better one? No.

I am certain of this though: If Jane Eyre's autobiography (subtitle, remember) gives an account of what 'Love' is, I want nothing to do with it. I have grown to understand that love will involve understanding your own feelings. Jane is suspicious enough that I do not trust this. Also, the religious zeal she shows at the very end of the book is out of left-field. Perhaps an attempt to satisfy the God-lovers in her life? Perhaps she could not distance herself from religion. Either way, it is out of place. And Jane, I fear, is not capable of loving.