History Headscratchers / JaneEyre

6th Nov '16 9:37:08 AM JC96
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Why didn't Mrs. Reed allow Jane to go live with her uncle John?
** I get that it was out of spite because Jane rightfully called her out and for plot purposes, but Mrs. Reed had a great chance to be rid of Jane, whom she finds an "burden" and Jane could've been with an nicer part of her family. Did Mrs. Reed still felt grugdingly compelled to honor her late husband's wishes? Or did she get some sick, twisted kick of reminding her that she doesn't amount to anyone.
9th Feb '16 4:37:26 PM somerandometroper
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***Some people have a natural immunity to TB. Jane might well be immune and since she hadn't been at Lowood as long, the malnutrition might not have weakened her as much as the other pupils yet, hence why she also avoided the Typhus.
21st Jan '16 4:22:50 PM bombadilla
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Additionally, it might be serving the psychological purpose of making him feel less like he's locking up and getting rid of his deranged wife and more like he's taking care of her. After all, when they're under the same roof he can keep an eye on her caretakers and be immediately informed if something is amiss. This might also be a bit of FridgeBrilliance regarding his real reasons for not sending Bertha to Ferndean.
19th Jan '16 4:36:53 PM mlsmithca
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Additionally, it might be serving the psychological purpose of making him feel less like he's locking up and getting rid of his deranged wife and more like he's taking care of her. After all, when they're under the same roof he can keep an eye on her caretakers and be immediately informed if something is amiss. {{YMMV}} on whether this makes him more redeemable or more of a hypocrite. This might also be a bit of FridgeBrilliance regarding his real reasons for not sending Bertha to Ferndean.

to:

** Additionally, it might be serving the psychological purpose of making him feel less like he's locking up and getting rid of his deranged wife and more like he's taking care of her. After all, when they're under the same roof he can keep an eye on her caretakers and be immediately informed if something is amiss. {{YMMV}} on whether this makes him more redeemable or more of a hypocrite. This might also be a bit of FridgeBrilliance regarding his real reasons for not sending Bertha to Ferndean.
19th Jan '16 2:52:02 PM bombadilla
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Additionally, it might be serving the psychological purpose of making him feel less like he's locking up and getting rid of his deranged wife and more like he's taking care of her. After all, when they're under the same roof he can keep an eye on her caretakers and be immediately informed if something is amiss. {{YMMV}} on whether this makes him more redeemable or more of a hypocrite. This might also be a bit of FridgeBrilliance regarding his real reasons for not sending Bertha to Ferndean.
21st Jun '15 3:01:08 PM Shoebox
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Yep, insanity wasn't grounds for divorce, and furthermore--since the insane spouse would never be able to provide viable grounds--bound the sane half of the couple into what could become decades of solitary misery. This actually led to a weird co-incidence when Charlotte Bronte dedicated the first edition of her novel to William Thackeray (then at the height of "Vanity Fair" fame) solely because she admired his work. Thing was, it was common knowledge , to everyone except sheltered Charlotte that Thackeray's wife was also hopelessly insane. Whereupon society at large gleefully assumed that ''Jane Eyre'''s mysteriously pseudonymed author ''must'' be hinting either that Rochester was a particularly heartless riff on Thackeray or that s/he was his mistress, or of course both. Bronte was horrified when she found out and made it clear in subsequent editions that no such relationship existed.

to:

*** Yep, insanity wasn't grounds for divorce, and furthermore--since the insane spouse would never be able to provide viable grounds--bound the sane half of the couple into what could become decades of solitary misery. This actually led to a weird co-incidence when Charlotte Bronte dedicated the first edition of her novel to William Thackeray (then at the height of "Vanity Fair" fame) solely because she admired his work. Thing was, it was common knowledge , to everyone except sheltered Charlotte that Thackeray's wife was also hopelessly insane. Whereupon society at large gleefully assumed that ''Jane Eyre'''s mysteriously pseudonymed author ''must'' be hinting either that Rochester was a particularly heartless riff on Thackeray or that s/he was his mistress, or of course both. Bronte was horrified when she found out and made it clear in subsequent editions that no such relationship existed.
21st Jun '15 3:00:54 PM Shoebox
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Yep, insanity wasn't grounds for divorce, and furthermore--since the insane spouse would never be able to provide viable grounds--bound the sane half of the couple into what could become decades of solitary misery. This actually led to a weird co-incidence when Charlotte Bronte dedicated the first edition of her novel to William Thackeray (then at the height of "Vanity Fair" fame) solely because she admired his work. Thing was, it was common knowledge that Thackeray's wife was also hopelessly insane, to everyone except sheltered Charlotte. Whereupon society at large gleefully assumed that ''Jane Eyre'''s mysteriously pseudonymed author ''must'' be hinting either that Rochester was a particularly heartless riff on Thackeray or that s/he was his mistress, or of course both. Bronte was horrified when she found out and made it clear in subsequent editions that no such relationship existed.

to:

*** Yep, insanity wasn't grounds for divorce, and furthermore--since the insane spouse would never be able to provide viable grounds--bound the sane half of the couple into what could become decades of solitary misery. This actually led to a weird co-incidence when Charlotte Bronte dedicated the first edition of her novel to William Thackeray (then at the height of "Vanity Fair" fame) solely because she admired his work. Thing was, it was common knowledge , to everyone except sheltered Charlotte that Thackeray's wife was also hopelessly insane, to everyone except sheltered Charlotte.insane. Whereupon society at large gleefully assumed that ''Jane Eyre'''s mysteriously pseudonymed author ''must'' be hinting either that Rochester was a particularly heartless riff on Thackeray or that s/he was his mistress, or of course both. Bronte was horrified when she found out and made it clear in subsequent editions that no such relationship existed.
21st Jun '15 2:59:06 PM Shoebox
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Yep, insanity wasn't grounds for divorce, and furthermore--since the insane spouse would never be able to provide viable grounds--bound the sane half of the couple into what could become decades of solitary misery. This actually led to a weird co-incidence when Charlotte Bronte dedicated the first edition of her novel to [[William Thackeray]] solely because she admired his work. Thing was, it was common knowledge that Thackeray's wife was also hopelessly insane, to everyone except sheltered Charlotte. Whereupon society at large gleefully assumed that ''Jane Eyre'''s mysteriously pseudonymed author ''must'' be hinting either that Rochester was a particularly heartless riff on Thackeray or that s/he was his mistress, or of course both. Bronte was horrified when she found out and made it clear in subsequent editions that no such relationship existed.

to:

*** Yep, insanity wasn't grounds for divorce, and furthermore--since the insane spouse would never be able to provide viable grounds--bound the sane half of the couple into what could become decades of solitary misery. This actually led to a weird co-incidence when Charlotte Bronte dedicated the first edition of her novel to [[William Thackeray]] William Thackeray (then at the height of "Vanity Fair" fame) solely because she admired his work. Thing was, it was common knowledge that Thackeray's wife was also hopelessly insane, to everyone except sheltered Charlotte. Whereupon society at large gleefully assumed that ''Jane Eyre'''s mysteriously pseudonymed author ''must'' be hinting either that Rochester was a particularly heartless riff on Thackeray or that s/he was his mistress, or of course both. Bronte was horrified when she found out and made it clear in subsequent editions that no such relationship existed.
21st Jun '15 2:58:16 PM Shoebox
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***Yep, insanity wasn't grounds for divorce, and furthermore--since the insane spouse would never be able to provide viable grounds--bound the sane half of the couple into what could become decades of solitary misery. This actually led to a weird co-incidence when Charlotte Bronte dedicated the first edition of her novel to [[William Thackeray]] solely because she admired his work. Thing was, it was common knowledge that Thackeray's wife was also hopelessly insane, to everyone except sheltered Charlotte. Whereupon society at large gleefully assumed that ''Jane Eyre'''s mysteriously pseudonymed author ''must'' be hinting either that Rochester was a particularly heartless riff on Thackeray or that s/he was his mistress, or of course both. Bronte was horrified when she found out and made it clear in subsequent editions that no such relationship existed.
6th Apr '15 9:37:00 PM DougReeder
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** One more person is easier to hide from the public in a large establishment. And everyone is a servant or dependent of Rochester, so it's not a big deal if they suspect what's going on.
This list shows the last 10 events of 26. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.JaneEyre