Jane Eyre Jane Eyre Price : $5.50 Description Charlotte Bront� characterized the eponymous heroine of her 1847 novel as being "as poor and plain as myself." Presenting a heroine with neither great beauty nor entrancing charm was an unprecendented maneuver, but Bront�'s instincts proved correct, for readers of her era and ever after have taken Jane Eyre into their hearts. The author drew upon her own experience to depict Jane's struggles at Lowood, an oppressive boarding school, and her troubled career as a governess. Unlike Jane, Bront� had the advantage of a warm family circle that shared and encouraged her literary pursuits. She found immediate success with this saga of an orphan girl forced to make her way alone in the world, from Lowood School to Thornfield, the estate of the majestically moody Mr. Rochester, and beyond. Unabridged republication of a standard edition. About Us is the online bookstore that supports the Classical Conversations network of thousands of experienced home-centered education Directors, Tutors, and parents who promote the Christian, classical model of education using Classical Conversations' Assignment Guides and Curriculum.

Jane Eyre on emaze Historical Fiction Jane eyre: a basic overview Jane Eyre, a nineteenth-century novel set in rural England, was written by Charlotte Brontë in 1847. It is a historical fiction novel, and is also considered classical literature. I thought it was a delightful book, and I would most definitely recommend it to you. Summary In this book, Charlotte Brontë tells the story of a young orphan named Jane Eyre. In the beginning of the book, Jane lives with her aunt and cousins at Gateshead, a magnificent estate left to her aunt by her uncle, . In the beginning of the book, Jane is bullied by her cousin John, after which Jane is locked in the "red-room" for her impudence. This room is the bedroom in which Jane's uncle died, and Jane is petrified. She gets so scared that she loses consciousness. After this incident, Jane is sent to Lowood, a harsh boarding school for poor orphaned girls. She hates it there, but makes one friend, named Helen Burns, later to die in her arms.

Jane grows up at Lowood, and stays there as a student until she is sixteen, and then as a teacher until she is eighteen, when she leaves the school to become a governess. She goes to Thornfield, where she meets her pupil, Adele. She is a little French girl, and she can speak barely any English. Not long after Jane arrives at Thornfield, she meets the owner of the estate: Edward Rochester. Jane develops a liking to him despite his craggy appearance and blunt manner. Their romance develops, and Rochester proposes to Jane. She happily accepts, but but on the day of the wedding, two men show up and reveal that Rochester already has a wife, named Bertha Mason. She is insane, and is locked on the third floor. Characters Richard Mason Setting Jane Eyre is set in north-central England in the 1800s. The first part of the novel is set at Gateshead, an estate owned by Jane's abusive aunt, Sarah Reed. The second part of the novel is set at Lowood, a strict boarding school for poor, orphaned girls like Jane. The third part of the novel is set at Thornfield, the estate of Edward Rochester, Jane's employer.

After staying at Thornfield as a governess, Jane goes to Moor House in Morton for a small period of time, where she meets her cousins, and the novel ends at Ferndean, where she meets the now-blind Rochester and marries him. Jane Eyre the person Jane Eyre is an orphan living with her aunt and cousins. She is described as plain, homely and reticent. She is sympathetic, hard-working, candid, and determined. She has many talents, among them drawing and teaching. She also speaks French. She later works as a governess at Thornfield Hall, and falls in love with her employer, Edward Rochester. Mr. Rochester Stern, slightly rude, abrupt, these are all adjectives that can describe Edward Rochester. Does he seem like a nice person to you? Your answer is most likely no. But Jane Eyre is oddly attracted to this wealthy owner of the estate she works at. Gateshead Gateshead is the estate at which Jane spends most of her childhood. It was left to her aunt-by-marriage, Mrs. Reed, by her uncle. Sarah Reed- Jane's abusive aunt-by-marriage. Believes Jane to be inferior to her family.

John Reed- Jane's malicious, evil cousin. Abhors Jane and is constantly tormenting her. Eliza Reed- Jane's cousin, John's sister. She has a minor role, but it is clear that she dislikes Jane. Georgiana has literally no contact with Jane, but it is still clear that she sides with her brother. Bessie- the nurse at Gateshead. She is the only person there who shows kindness towards Jane, and Jane is very grateful for this. People at Gateshead Lowood Institute Lowood is a harsh boarding school for poor orphaned girls like Jane Eyre. In the book, it is described as a very gloomy place, with lots of burnt porridge and cruelty. Jane makes one friend here, and her name is Helen Burns. Jane's favorite teacher is a young woman named Miss Temple. A pretty woman with a kindly attitude towards Jane Eyre, Miss Temple is the teacher in charge of Lowood Institute. Jane really adores her because she exonerated Jane when Mr. Brocklehurst accused her of wrongdoing. Miss Temple Helen Burns Helen Burns is Jane's best friend at Lowood, and she offers a lot of advice and comfort to Jane.

She is very pious, and dies of tuberculosis in Jane's arms later in the book. Mr. Brocklehurst Jane strongly dislikes this hypocritical supervisor of Lowood Institute who takes pleasure in seeing young girls starve, and telling them that they will go to Hell for their sins. Meanwhile, his own children are clad in silk and fur, and have probably never gone hungry. People at Lowood Thornfield hall Thornfield Hall is the estate of Edward Rochester, Jane's employer and eventual lover. Jane spends her time here as a governess. Blanche is a wealthy girl who thinks that she is in love with Mr. Rochester, and Jane greatly dislikes her. Jane believes that Mr. Rochester loves Blanche, but this is actually not the case. Blanche Ingram Bertha Mason is Edward Rochester's insane wife, and she is described by Jane as "fearful and ghastly". Her "prison guard" is Grace Poole, a servant. At first, Jane assumes that the eerie laugh on the third floor is coming from Grace, but it is actually coming from Bertha. Bertha Mason Grace Poole Mrs. Fairfax is the person who replies to Jane's advertisement for in the newspaper.

Adele is a young girl who may or may not be Mr. Rochester's daughter. She speaks only French at first, but she gets better at English with Jane. Adele Varens people at thornfield Rating Jane Eyre deserves this rating of 4.5 stars out of 5 because the book was a little wordy at times, and there were some characters that scared me a little, but the plot and characters were phenomenal. Jane Eyre was unlike any heroine I had ever read about, and the romance story was very unique. I gave this book a 4.5 instead of a 5 because I really didn't like the vivid descriptions of Bertha Mason. I found her to be very disturbing, and extremely scary at times. I would recommend it to readers about 13+, because the language in the book can quite wordy at times, and some parts of the book are a little graphic, or hard to understand. About the author Charlotte Bronte was born on April 21, 1816, and she died on March 31, 1855. She wrote four novels, three of which were published in her lifetime.

The fourth one, which was originally rejected for publication, was published posthumously. Many of the events and places in Jane Eyre are based off of places from Charlotte's childhood. Thanks for watching! Jane Eyre Reviews & Ratings - IMDb IMDb 22 out of 23 people found the following review useful: Goodness, that's unfaithful from Brooklyn, NY 23 January 2004 A cheerful Rochester? A beautiful Jane Eyre? A slapstick Adelle? Oy, what's the point of adapting a classic novel if you're gonna change every character! I suppose the film has a certain appeal anyway; it's pleasantly ancient and strange, and it's nice to see Colin "Dr. Frankenstein" Clive in another role. But, to true devotees of the original novel, this is a real butcher job. Was the above review useful to you? 24 out of 32 people found the following review useful: Worst version ever made from Florida 12 May 2003 Jane Eyre is my favorite novel. I have read Charlotte Bronte's classic story many times over the past 30 years.

The original story has many spiritual aspects that appeal to me, beautiful inner and outward dialogue, an intriguing plot, complex characters, and other fine qualities no longer appreciated by a large segment of the reading public in the modern world. I bought the DVD for this ancient film dinosaur with Virginia Bruce and Colin Clive (Dr. Frankenstein! no less) because I suspected it would be good for a laugh. But this film version is so bad I was more shocked than amused. They ominously started the film on the wrong foot by misquoting the first line of the novel; they removed the character of Helen Burns altogether; they gave Grace Poole a husband who was a servant in the house who warns Jane "I like you, so I'm going to tell you: lock your door at night!"; they have Jane screaming at Mr. Brocklehurst and calling him names, so she is fired from her job as teacher there.

In the book Jane isn't fired; she leaves to find a governess position to escape from Lowood Institution (here called an orphanage, even though in the novel not all the children were orphans - Lowood in the book was a charity institution, not an orphanage); in this film Adele is not French, her origins in the house are not even discussed; she calls Rochester "Uncle Edward", and he fawns over her and spoils her rotten, something that didn't happen in the book at all. They make Blanche ugly and older, and Jane Eyre a platinum blonde with Mary Pickford curls. Hello? Jane was supposed to be plain, and Blanche was supposed to be gorgeous. They turn it all around in this monstrosity. In the scene where Jane saves Rochester from the fire the possible reason for that fire is not even discussed between them; he kisses her hands and she promptly leaves the room like she was leaving a garden party, seemingly unaffected by his passion. The worst liberty they took with the classic novel was having Edward Rochester apparently trying to have his marriage to his first wife "annulled", which made no sense, since Rochester was not Catholic. There is no Mr.

Mason in this version; there is no attempted wedding scene. The "insane" wife just walks into a room at Thornfield in which Jane, Rochester, and the minister are standing and announces she wants to see her husband. The servants spirit her away and she protests in a totally normal voice: "I want to see my husband!" LOL! Why didn't they LET HER SEE HER HUSBAND??? I was starting to think that everyone in the house was insane, and Bertha was the only normal one! There's more that I can say about this sad state of affairs (like having Jane singing to Rochester, which DID send me into fits of laughter) but I won't bore you, and will simply conclude with this statement: do NOT show this version to anyone who has not read the book first. This is NOT "Jane Eyre"; this is some other story! The best, most faithful version of Jane was the 1982-3 BBC version with Timothy Dalton. Why the Timothy Dalton version has not been put on DVD yet, and this 1934 Monogram Colin Clive fiasco has been, is totally beyond my comprehension. Hopefully this sad state of affairs will be attended to and corrected shortly.

A classic becomes a classic for very specific reasons. When film companies approach a story like Jane Eyre with disrespect, and feel they can change anything and everything about it to their heart's content, then the very spirit of that classic is destroyed. When will they ever learn? Was the above review useful to you? 12 out of 12 people found the following review useful: Completely rewritten version of the classic novel! 16 September 2006 *** This review may contain spoilers *** This creaky Monogram cheapo, running at just over an hour, manages to change the Bronte novel to such a degree that after the first ten minutes I had to stop laughing, forget about the book, and enjoy the film for what it is - essentially a film using characters from 'Jane Eyre'. Jane Eyre is a wilful child who is happy to go to Lowood and eventually is fired after calling her employer a 'wicked old crocodile'. So the whole point of abuse of Lowood is lost with this flippant treatment and the complete removal of Helen Burns. Oh, and Jane swans off with 'the inheritance she has from her uncle'. Eh?

On her way to Thornfield with a comedy cart driver (added character, husband of Grace Poole) she steps down and gets in the way of Mr Rochester's horse. OK, this is from the book, but her response to his questioning what she does at Thornfield is not! Once at the house, Adele is the English niece of 'Uncle Edward', so removing the point of illegitimacy and neglect of the child, who is now doted on. Even the first scene of conversation between Jane and Rochester is off-kilter, especially when she takes to the piano and sings to him! Blanche Ingram is a matronly woman who couldn't possibly compare with Jane's ringlets; Adele does imitations of party guests for Blanche's dad; and there is no Mason, no gypsy scene, no tension. There is the burning bed scene but that falls flat and has none of the drive we expect to see from that situation. Rochester is waiting for an annulment to come through, so no obstacle to marrying Jane and no potential bigamy here. In fact Adele suggests he marries Jane and so he rushes to propose!

The 'mad' wife seem strangely lucid, although Jane still leaves when she sees her and almost immediately it seems the house burns down. John Rivers is included briefly as Jane goes to work for his mission and even agrees to marry him before meeting Mr Poole again and discovering about the Thornfield fire. Now her affections seem to change again and she goes back for the reconciliation with the now blind Rochester. As Jane, Virginia Bruce is far too pretty but she was a good actress and, putting aside the book and other interpretations, is watchable and engaging. Colin Clive, best known for Frankenstein, plays Rochester with some skill but does not have enough to work with. This version is too merry, too happy, without the complications and the discontent you would expect to see from a man disappointed with his lot and damaged from an inappropriate marriage to a madwoman. I was glad to see it and have rated it a 6 because as a film on its own, it is fairly good. As an adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's complex novel it is a disgrace. Was the above review useful to you? 15 out of 18 people found the following review useful: Freshen up your home with Jane Eyre....

from Australia 17 February 2005 Creaky stagy and truly muffled and, well, ancient, this 1934 Monogram talkie has 1929 production values which clearly irritate some viewers. One must be kind to these 61 minute double feature barrel bottom scrapers and emotionally account for the time and place they were made. Monogram was formed in 1931 as a result of the talkie boom, and by 1934 were trying to upgrade their image. They were probably still using the same 1928 equipment the first bought second hand in 1931 from some creaky talkie outfit the folded in 1930. Remember this was a time when there was 30,000 single screen cinemas in the USA alone so anything and everything had a chance of showing in maybe six or seven thousand cinemas. Monogram charged a flat rental fee for their films and since they knew how many cinemas would play a particular sort of film they knew show much profit was in it before it was even made.

Some very entertaining films from this period include their 61 minute version of OLIVER TWIST, their 66 minute operetta musical KING KELLY OF THE USA complete with an animated sequence!...and their super block buster again around 65 minutes GIRL OF THE LIMBERLOST. The only reason they would have attempted JANE EYRE is because: a: it was out of copyright and they could make it 'for free' b: Oliver Twist made some money and the sets and costumes were still at the studio c: Monogram Pictures were double feature fillers usually and they needed to make another, and one with a veneer of 'quality'. d: they were trying anything to see if they could make it. Monogram fans would see the same stairs and rooms and furniture for the next 25 years in almost every other Charlie Chan Mr Wong and Bowrey Boys Monogram Picture...even as late as 1958 in The House On Haunted Hill and in 1965 in the Elvis comedy in a ghost town TICKLE ME. True! Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful: Not the Cliff Notes version, but not bad from Washington, DC 14 April 2004 Adapting a classic novel faithfully and accurately is a good thing, and most IMDB reviewers have condemned this version for its fast-and-loose adaption of the Charlotte Bronte novel. However, faithfulness to the source material isn't the only standard by which to judge a movie. This version of Jane Eyre is only an hour long, so all except a few of the main plot points are sacrificed or, as others have noted, altered. But if you don't intend to pass a school exam on the novel by watching the movie, and if you judge the movie on its own merits, it does have merits. Virginia Bruce and Colin Clive are attractive and appealing leads. Several of the character actors are given moments in which to shine, and make the most of them. And the settings and photography are suitably moodily atmospheric. On its own, without reference to the book, it's not half bad, and worth the hour. Was the above review useful to you? 9 out of 9 people found the following review useful: Thank God for Claire DuBrey!

from Madison, WI 9 June 2002 For the most part this is a fairly weak Monogram (read budget with a capital B) adaptation of the Bronte classic. Colin Clive is woefully miscast as Edward Rochester, a character so complex and filled with such passionate brooding that it takes the likes of an Orson Welles or a George C.Scott to really pull it off. Instead Clive plays the master of Thornfield like he is just some normal single dad on the make who just happens to have his unbalanced first wife locked up in the attic.Maybe director Cabanne thought that this interpretation would make the character seem more suspicious to the audiences of 1934. Unfortunately this reviewer writing in 2002 finds Clive's Rochester about as suspicious as a stained glass window. In a Lutheran church.Virginia Bruce is adequate as the title character but unfortunately her best lines are undermined by unnecessary stock music pulled from Monogram's Oliver Twist (released the previous year). However horror fans especially those who feel at home with the jump-out-of-your-skin style of Sam Raimi of Evil Dead fame should see this film for the well-timed SHREIKS emanating from that attic.

Claire DuBrey's banshee routine is enough to make your heart jump out of your mouth and do the macarena on top of the TV. So see this Eyre for the Screamer not for Ward Cleaver. Was the above review useful to you? 8 out of 9 people found the following review useful: It's a Monogram - not Masterpiece theatre!!! 12 March 2009 *** This review may contain spoilers *** I love the book as well and I also agree that the Timothy Dalton series exactly depicted how I had always imagined Jane Eyre as looking. If we are nit-picking Joan Fontaine was hardly a plain jane - maybe by Hollywood standards. I feel that this version was never intended for people that had actually read the book - heck, the people that produced it had probably never even heard of Charlotte Bronte. There are quite a few satirical films around that depict the philistines that used to run the studios. People that would take a fine novel (like "Jane Eyre") and dumb the story down so it is completely unrecognisable.

"Stand In" (1937) is a great satire on the studio system - Leslie Howard plays a literate accountant put in charge of a film studio to get it out of the red, Humphrey Bogart is a director who wants to make tasteful, high class films but nobody seems to know what he is talking about. The thirties were the height of glamour and artificiality in the studio system. Nobody would have gone to the movies to see the heroine played by an unattractive actress. Virginia Bruce (has she ever looked more beautiful than in this film!!!) played Jane Eyre and who else would play Jane as a child than Jean Darling, who started her career in Our Gang and could have doubled as an angel. Actually this film was quite a "special" production for Monogram - it even secured the services of Colin Clive as Mr. Rochester. The film starts out truthfully in it's depiction of Jane's treatment at the hands of her beastly cousins (Richard Quine portrays John Reed). She is sent to Lowood (and goes very willingly). The roles of Jane Eyre and Helen are combined as Jane is shorn of her beautiful ringlets.

After several years she becomes a teacher and when she has a confrontation with Mr. Brocklehurst, she finds a position as a governess at Thornfield Hall. Unknowingly, she has already met Mr. Rochester (Colin Clive) after he has a fall from his horse. She meets Adele (Edith Fellows) who plays a little Miss Fixit and is instrumental in bringing Jane and Rochester together. She also meets Rochester again and he is completely love struck!!! Jane hears a scream in the night and is told it is one of the servants. Meanwhile Rochester has indicated that he will marry in a few months and everyone assumes it will be haughty Blanche Ingram (Aileen Pringle). He invites Jane to her first ball and with adjectives like pretty and charming being thrown about, she is almost the belle of the ball - not quite the Jane Eyre I remember. There is also the famous fire, which Jane stamps out with her foot and then coughs prettily to awaken Rochester. Jane finds out who is behind the "fire" and the screams - it is Rochester's wife. She escapes from her room just before his marriage and announces herself.

Bertha (Claire Du Brey) seems quite sane and composed - not the mad harridan of Bronte's book. Jane flees and finds herself working in a soup kitchen run by StJohn Rivers and because she is so irresistible, he also has proposed. She then meets Sam, a worker at Thornfield Hall, who tells her that the Hall has burned down and that Rochester is blind. I liked it also and agree with some of the other reviewers. I certainly didn't think Adele was that bad - at least she had a passable English accent. Recommended. from New York 27 July 2006 I was very curious to see this film for a long time, and was happy to finally get the chance to see it when it came out on DVD not long ago. I've always liked Colin Clive, and it seemed to me that he would be a good choice to play Edward Rochester. I wasn't disappointed. He was nervous, agitated, sympathetic and quite tormented as usual. I wasn't familiar with Virginia Bruce going in, and was absolutely astounded that she was chosen for the part of Jane Eyre.

What we have here is a big, buxom, beautiful blond with a flawless, pale complexion and a gorgeous smile. With her shoes on she's nearly as tall as Clive & that sultry, fleshy body of hers suggests she outweighs the gaunt actor by more than a few pounds as well. During the party Rochester has for his guests he says to Jane, "You're a funny little thing..." which I thought was a hoot since the script writer must have wrote the scene before clapping an eye on Ms. Bruce, who is anything but a "Funny little thing." What does all this mean? Well yes, as others here have said, this film has only a glancing similarity to the novel. The discrepancies are so outrageous that they border on being quite charming and sweet. Aileen Pringle as Blanche Ingram is an attractive actress, yet Virginia Bruce has a huge advantage in looks over her that actually leads to dialog suggesting as much! In the novel Rochester is tormented and difficult, but he is a powerful and dominating figure. Here, Colin Clive as Rochester is tormented and weak, and as such we have a romance where he is all but consumed and comforted by Jane's tall figure and ample charms.

The sequence where Rochester tricks Jane into choosing jewelry, clothes and other items out for herself and not Blanche Ingram (which is Jane's mistaken notion) is consistent with the novel and other film versions and is very touching. This is the no stress version of Jane Eyre that I found very pleasing to watch. Was the above review useful to you? 6 out of 6 people found the following review useful: SPOILERS: A disappointment, but of interest to film buffs 14 August 2006 *** This review may contain spoilers *** I had high hopes for this movie, and I still think it's worth seeing from a historical point of view, but it certainly could have been better. Naturally it's tough to do the novel justice in 62 minutes, but it would have worked better had they not wasted precious time on silly or insignificant events. For example, does anyone really want to see Adele dust the banister? The 1938 version of "A Christmas Carol" manages to cover a lot of ground in 69 minutes by making every line count. Alas, this version of Jane Eyre doesn't.

The character of Jane Eyre, in my opinion, has been molded into a strapping, two-fisted gal who progresses from slugging her cousin and shouting at her aunt  to an impudent governess who goes about smashing vases and smart-talking her employer's fiancée! The novel portrays Jane as a plain and intelligent young woman who possesses great dignity and the ability to stand tall, despite the trials of her surroundings. This movie's Jane Eyre would be at home with the Bowery Boys. Colin Clive is an interesting actor, but unfortunately the moody, difficult aspects of Mr. Rochester that he might have done something with are almost entirely gone. Rochester here is seen doting on Adele (his niece, whereas the book suggests Adele is his illegitimate child) and fawning over Jane with stunning rapidity. Check out when he invites her to dance and wonders why she didn't dress up for the party! Are we to believe that the engaged and wealthy owner of an estate expects his governess to deck herself out and participate in the party as a social equal? And would an orphanage teacher/governess have a party dress??

Perhaps this movie would play better for someone who hasn't read the book. For me, I kept thinking: The novel possesses a wealth of fascinating scenes and well-drawn characters. Why don't we see them here? The revelation of Rochester's wife in the novel, for example, was suspenseful and shocking. Here, the actual Mrs. Rochester strolls casually up to say how do you do! I must say that Christy Cabanne's direction was reasonably competent, and at times I felt like he was doing a lot with a little. So, the movie's not a total loss, but it's a major disappointment in that with better, tighter scripting we might have enjoyed a small-scale yet well-crafted production. Too bad! Was the above review useful to you? 7 out of 9 people found the following review useful: So bad it's not funny 11 November 2007 *** This review may contain spoilers *** I have long held "Jane Eyre" as one of the best classics in the English language, and felt that even an average production of the novel would be fairly enjoyable. If the director stuck to the story, it would be impossible to make a bad version ... unfortunately, this film proved me wrong.

The original novel showed the trials of the eponymous heroine as she escapes a traumatic childhood both with her aunt and later at the notorious Lowood school. She ultimately goes to work as a governess at Thornfield where she falls in love with the owner, Mr Rochester, a man far above her in social class. Will they manage to declare their love for either other? If so, how? And what about the strange woman in the attic? The sexual and social tensions in the novel create a tense and dramatic atmosphere - not to mention the Gothic elements of the woman in the attic - and most directors would, you feel, jump at the chance to make a film of "Jane Eyre" for those very reasons. It is acceptable to change certain aspects of a story for adaptation for cinematic reasons if these assist in telling the story, but this version makes so many changes that the original plot and all the subsequent tension is completely lost. Jane's relationship with Mr Rochester is extremely cordial, and he seems almost like the boy next door in his dealings with her. In reality, this would never have taken place in the England of the time: governesses were strictly "below stairs", and no employer would have behaved in such a familiar and friendly way with her.

The idea of any tension between them has completely disappeared. Likewise, the revelation of the identity of the madwoman in the attic is not dealt with as in the novel (which would have made a highly dramatic scene for cinema audiences), but is given a completely different treatment, which is considerably weaker and lacks virtually any impact. In fact, I wonder if the scriptwriter had actually read the Charlotte Bronte novel, as these changes to the original plot have effectively destroyed all that was of interest in the story. Colin Clive is a fine actor and could have been a far more effective Rochester than the script allowed him here. Virginia Bruce is rather too pretty for the title role and, again, not given the chance to handle the role in the proper way. The Orson Welles/Joan Fontaine version of "Jane Eyre" remains the standard for me, despite certain reservations: it is certainly far better than this film, which should never have been made. Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 3: Why Jane Eyre is most definitely a YA novel | Children's books | The Guardian Author opinion Why Jane Eyre is most definitely a YA novel ‘First sparks of love, first kisses, first great disappointments’: Lena Coakley on why Jane Eyre is not just a classic, it’s classic YA Forget Katniss Everdeen, Jane Eyre is the original YA heroine. Photograph: Allstar/BBC FILMS Lena Coakley Tuesday 19 April 2016 14.00 EDT Last modified on Tuesday 19 April 2016 14.02 EDT Share on Messenger Close Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë was the first book my grandmother read out loud to me when I went to live with her at the age of 12. I expect she thought that reading about a girl who had also lost her parents might give me comfort. Because of my age, it was the young Jane with whom I identified, the Jane trapped in the haunted “red room,” the Jane forced to go to the horrible Lowood School. I didn’t read the book as a teen. I wish I had.

If I’d read it then, I might have identified with the restless, not-quite-formed Jane – the 18-year-old young adult who is the main character for most of the book. Countless young women have done so and found inspiration in the poor and plain governess who refuses to be overcome by a world that is constantly trying to subjugate and belittle her. Jane Eyre is a book about finding one’s identity in the face of such adversity; it is a book about coming of age; and for this reason I believe it fits perfectly into the category of a young adult novel. It is, after all, about the concerns of a young adult. Becca Fitzpatrick: 'As a teen, I was in love with Heathcliff. As an adult, he terrifies me' Read more But is Jane a young adult? some might ask. Wasn’t an 18-year-old fully an adult by the standards of the day? Charlotte Brontë writes of a character balanced between childhood and maturity. In fact, she uses the tension of this balance again and again to give her story energy.

Right before she meets Mr Rochester, the man who will become her great love, Jane is on a secluded path when she is frightened by a sound: Jane Eyre is a book about finding one’s identity in the face of such adversity; it is a book about coming of age “In those days I was young, and all sorts of fancies bright and dark tenanted my mind: the memories of nursery stories were there amongst other rubbish; and when they recurred, maturing youth added to them a vigour and vividness beyond what childhood could give.” The fact that Jane is a “maturing youth,” taking her first steps into a wider world, makes her story particularly resonant for young adult readers. Young adult writing is often about firsts –first sparks of love, first kisses, first great disappointments. Jane Eyre, who has never seen a city, who has barely spoken to a man, is the quintessential young adult in this regard; everything is new to her. I know that many people who don’t read YA will balk at the suggestion that Jane Eyre is a YA novel. After all, Jane Eyre is great literature!

There is plenty of great literature on the YA shelf, I assure you, and I challenge anyone who doesn’t believe me to read The Astonishing Life of Octavian Nothing, Traitor to the Nation by MT Anderson, or Exit, Pursued by a Bear by EK Johnston, or Midwinterblood by Marcus Sedgwick, to name a few in a list that could take up my entire word count for this article. The 100 best novels: No 12 – Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë (1847) Read more However, I suspect an even stronger reason adults might object to calling Jane Eyre a YA novel is because it explores female desire so openly. Jane Eyre does not contain explicit sex, but it does have an earthiness that shocked its Victorian readers. Jane struggles to untangle feelings of lust from feelings of love. She wonders what it would be like to marry her cousin St John, a man who admires her, but does not have “a husband’s heart” to give her, and she frankly considers what it would mean to consummate a loveless marriage with him, ultimately finding the idea “monstrous”.

There has been much discussion lately about how much sex is appropriate in YA, but I’d argue that fiction is the safe place young people need for exploring questions like the ones Charlotte Brontë poses about sex, attraction, and the true meaning of love. Of course, Brontë did not intend the book to be published for a teen audience. How could she? YA as a marketing category would not exist for another century. However, it’s hard to imagine she would have disapproved on the basis of its subject matter. She had been allowed to read widely as a young adult, and at 18 was herself enamoured with Byron and Shakespeare. I know that many people who don’t read YA will balk at the suggestion that Jane Eyre is a YA novel In the end, the most important question in determining whether or not Jane Eyre is a YA novel is: What is the best age to read this book? Although I didn’t reread Jane Eyre as a teen, I did finally read it again as an adult, many times in fact, and I love it. The book can be enjoyed at any age — but the same can be said of YA literature in general.

According to a 2012 study , more than half the buyers of YA books are over 18. Surely the best time to read Jane Eyre is as a young adult. When better to read a book preoccupied with deciding who one is going to be for the rest of one’s life? After that, there is nothing preventing a reader from enjoying it again… and again… and again. Have you read Jane Eyre? What do you think: YA or not? Tweet us @GdnChildrensBks and let us know your thoughts! Lena Coakley’s Worlds of Ink and Shadow (A Novel of The Brontës) is available from the Guardian bookshop. Jane Eyre eBook by Charlotte Brontë - 9780486114064 | Kobo Or, get it for 2400 Kobo Super Points! See if you have enough points for this eBook. Sign in In this series Show more Show less Determined to make her heroine "as poor and plain as myself," Charlotte Brontë made a daring choice for her 1847 novel.

Jane Eyre possesses neither the great beauty nor entrancing charm that her fictional predecessors used to make their way in the world. Instead, Jane relies upon her powers of diligence and perception, conducting herself with dignity animated by passion. The instant and lasting success of Jane Eyre proved Brontë's instincts correct. Readers of her era and ever after have taken the impoverished orphan girl into their hearts, following her from the custody of cruel relatives to a dangerously oppressive boarding school and onward through a troubled career as a governess. Jane's first assignment at Thorn field, where the proud and cynical master of the house harbors a scandalous secret, draws readers ever deeper into a compelling exploration of the mysteries of the human heart. A banquet of food for thought, this many-faceted tale invites a splendid variety of interpretations. The heroine's insistence upon emotional equality with her lover suggests a feminist viewpoint, while her solitary status invokes a consideration of the problems of growing up as a social outsider. Some regard Jane's attempts to reconcile her need for love with her search for moral rectitude as the story's primary message, and lovers of gothic romance find the tale's social and religious aspects secondary to its gripping elements of mystery and horror.

This classic of English literature truly features something for every reader. A selection of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Buy the eBook Jane Eyre | Much Madness is Divinest Sense Much Madness is Divinest Sense Books, Poetry, Life, the Universe, and Everything Search by Dana Last night I completed Charlotte Brontë’s classic novel Jane Eyre . As a child, I moved around quite a bit, especially in high school. Going to three different high schools has left some large gaps in my literature education, and many of the books one would ordinarily have read in high school I admit I have never read. No matter — I’m not sure I would have been ready for this one in high school, anyway. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the story, Jane Eyre stars the eponymous heroine Jane Eyre, who when orphaned by her parents at an early age goes to live with her cruel Aunt Reed until she is unceremoniously sent away to a harsh boarding school called Lowood. Jane eventually becomes a teacher at Lowood until a beloved mentor leaves the school to marry, at which time Jane decides to leave as well. She advertises for a position of governess and is hired by Mrs.

Fairfax of Thornfield Hall, the housekeeper for one of literature’s great Byronic heroes, Edward Fairfax Rochester. Mr. Rochester falls in love with Jane, but he harbors a dark secret in his attic that nearly proves the undoing of both his and Jane’s chance at love and happiness. Although I liked the novel, I didn’t find it difficult to put down, and indeed, one reason why it took me so long to finish is that for long stretches, I wasn’t really into reading it. However, overall I enjoyed Brontë’s writing style. I found her characters believable, with the exception of the children in the early part of the novel — who talked like no children I’ve ever heard. I admired Jane for standing fiercely by her convictions and valuing herself even when she thought no one else did. It is easy to see why so many literary admirers have borrowed Jane Eyre for inspiration, and I did enjoy the book in its entirety, if not the slower parts. I was inspired to read it after the characters in Diane Setterfield’s novel The Thirteenth Tale ( my review here ) admired it profusely in one of my favorite passages in the book.

My daughter Sarah is reading this book right now, and Iwill be interested to get her take on it. I am anxious to see how well this novel translated to the screen in one of its many movie adaptations. I am going to start with the 1944 production starring Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles, and I am anxious to read Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea if for no other reason than to see a little more of enigmatic Bertha Mason. As I predicted , I did not finish my R.I.P. Challenge by Halloween, but I am soldiering forth at any rate, and I hope to finish it by Christmas. [tags]jane eyre, charlotte brontë, book review, literature[/tags] Related posts: Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte. (Paperback 0486424499) Book Reviews, Used Book available for Swap Author: Charlotte Bronte Charlotte Bront?

characterized the eponymous heroine of her 1847 novel as being "as poor and plain as myself." Presenting a heroine with neither great beauty nor entrancing charm was an unprecendented maneuver, but Bront?'s instincts proved correct, for readers of her era and ever after have taken Jane Eyre into their hearts. The author drew upo... more » n her own experience to depict Jane's struggles at Lowood, an oppressive boarding school, and her troubled career as a governess. Unlike Jane, Bront? had the advantage of a warm family circle that shared and encouraged her literary pursuits. She found immediate success with this saga of an orphan girl forced to make her way alone in the world, from Lowood School to Thornfield, the estate of the majestically moody Mr. Rochester, and beyond. Unabridged republication of a standard edition. « less Post This Book + 19 more book reviews Helpful Score: 2 I've finally finished, and oh what a journey it has been!

Having read Wuthering Heights, the only novel of Charlotte's sister Emily, I embarked on my journey with Jane, encouraged by the raves of some friends and teachers (and the bookstore clerk who rang up my purchase!). I was moved to tears a few times, and I came to know Jane like an old friend. Indeed, Ms. Bronte spares the reader nothing, and the book is immersed in Jane's thoughts and emotions. The passion between Rochester and Jane is quite interesting (and oh, how I loved Rochester despite his faults!) Highly recommended. I must read it again. + 17 more book reviews Helpful Score: 2 Since its publication in 1847 "Jane Eyre" has never ceased to be one of the most widely read of English novels. Transmuted by the rare Bronte imagination, the romance of Jane and Rochester takes on a strange and unforgettable atmosphere that lifts it above the level of mere melodrama. But Charlotte Bronte intended more. She portrayed the refusal of a spirited and intelligent woman to accept her appointed place in society with unusual frankness and with a passionate sense of the dignity and needs of her sex. Q. D.

Leavis's introduction brings out the revolutionary qualities of the book and its author's creation of something that would 'be true to the experience of the whole woman and...convey a sense of life's springs and undercurrents.'

Question: Which eponymous classical heroine goes to Lowood School?
Answer: Jane Eyre