While I was steaming over the fucked up plot of Tess of the D’Urbervilles, I was reminded of my overall general hatred of books hailing from the late 1800s and early 1900s. It’s partly the pre-feminist plots that drive me up a wall (like chick lit today), but also the language barrier and mannerisms that keep me far, far away (again, like chick lit today…). I’ve never read any Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy, Edith Wharton, Henry James, etc. I can’t relate to any of the characters, and while I do love history, I find the style completely alienating.
I did read books by two out of the three Brontë sisters, though, when I was a teen. I suppose I was drawn in by all that Gothic moodiness. I re-read Jane Eyre for a college paper about 10 years ago (my how time flies), and at that point I noticed what a demented it book it is. Damn, Jane’s decision to stick by that old blind asshole Rochester irks me to no end. The guy fucking locked up his first wife (Bertha) in an attic. Whether Bertha really was insane before being locked up or not (and Jean Rhys has an amazing book, The Wide Sargasso Sea which takes Bertha’s point of view – I highly recommend it to anyone who read Jane Eyre), being shut in an attic would certainly drive anyone certifiably insane. (For more proof on this point, read Flowers in the Attic by VC Andrews. It’s a twisted tale about four kids who are banished to an attic in their eeeeevil granny’s house when their dad dies. However, do not – I repeat, do not read any of the sequels, as they are progressively trashier and imbecilic.) On the flippant side of the coin, I also feel for Bertha because her name is Bertha for god’s sake and that is a name that is definitely going to get a girl tormented by other kids when you are young, possibly even driving one insane.
The point is that Jane is a stupid cunt and if Rochester wasn’t completely dependent on her to care for him (yeah, that sounds like a great relationship), he’d probably get tired of her and hide her away so another he can get some fresh meat from another young dumb governess.
On the other hand, there can be some value if these books are read for what they are, which is a product of their times. They serve as nice reminders of why conservatives are flat out dead wrong when they look to the past as a model of the future. (If Bush isn't that asshole head of the orphanage in Jane, I don't know what he is.) If everyone understands the past, there might be more resistance to going back to the "good old" days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
See, the raging feminist that I am is going to have to disagree with you on Jane Eyre and Jane Austen. Despite the fact that the Brontes and Austen were not feminists they still wrote amazing pieces of literature. Yeah, Rochester was an ass but I think Bronte knew she had to humble him by blinding him in the fire; it was almost like she was making him pay for locking up his wife for so long. And Jane didn't have to go back to him. She had earned an inheritance and was able to live on her own money.
ReplyDeleteThe part of the book that did drive me batty was the time spent at her cousin, St John's, house and he was trying to marry her and take her on missionary work. He was such a drip. But if I'm not mistaken it was that side of her family who helped her find the family that left her money.
Anyway. I could go on for ages. Jane
Exactly - Jane didn't have to go back to Rochester, but she chose to. I find that infinitely worse than being forced to because otherwise she'd live on the street and be homeless or whatever. I do agree that "Jane Eyre" seems much better than "Tess," though.
ReplyDeleteThere is a thin line between Love and Insane.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with you Suzanne, she didn't have to go back but then I think about all the clients I work with today and they go back to their dead beat boyfriends/baby-daddys so perhaps the story can still ring true to many of today's modern women (sadly). Hum, do I see a modern day musical in this?
ReplyDeleteEddie - Very, very true.
ReplyDeletei loved The Wide Sargasso Sea.
ReplyDeletebut i also really love jane austin.
oh the snarkiness of those women!
The superwise graduate intern in my office (who did her English thesis on Mansfield Park) told me that she thought that I would really love Jane Austen and should give her books a try.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Minnie, you'll love Jane Austen. She pokes fun at the people who deserve it and creates a happy ending when deserved. She balks at the class system which I LOVE. Although I have to warn you all the happy endings in Jane A getting married for love (and of course money).
ReplyDeleteI was a lit major, so I was forced to read Austen, Henry James, and more of that rubbish, and I feel the same way you do. I just can't stand it. I think the worst offender is Kate Chopin's "The Awakening." She doesn't want to get married, but she does. She doesn't want to have children, but she does. Oh! Now she's unhappy, so she kills herself and leaves her two children motherless.
ReplyDeleteOr Wharton's "House of Mirth." Poor fucking Lily -- she's not as rich as her friends, but she has to pretend to be, so she gambles all her money away in Monte Carlo, but ends up dirt-ass poor making hats, and (wait for it)... kills herself.
Getting married for love is a good ending. I would enjoy that. however, my mom just asked me something about Madame Bovary, which reminded me what a horrible book that was... Man, if you hated The Awakening, Madame Bpvary is 50 times worse.
ReplyDelete