Answers to Jane Eyre Questions 5 & 6

Question 5. “Reader, I married him.”

How far do you think the reaction of the housekeeper Mary to this news equates to the modern

vernacular,“Yeah right. Whatever.”?                                                                                             

 

Answer:
 “Yeah, right. Whatever,” implies indifference tinged with a hint of disbelief, and is usually used rather offensively. In fact in the past a parent might justifiably have biffed a teenager for voicing the phrase, although this form of admonishment is no longer allowed.

     The housekeeper’s response - she said only “Have you, miss? Well, for sure!” - seems on the surface to be alike in that it appears indifferent (most women fly into high excitement at tidings of a wedding), which lack of reaction might also indicate disbelief of the news itself. If so that trace of disbelief is then offensive in suggesting that a lie has been told.

     But Mary, when told by Jane Eyre that she has married Mr Rochester, only feigned indifference, for fun and out of a sense of propriety.    

     Neither did she disbelieve the information. Her husband John had already told her that he thought Mr Rochester would marry Jane, so she was ready for the news.

     Thirdly, she did not mean to be offensive – only she was rather amused.

     So Mary’s reaction, on examination, does not equate to “Yeah, right. Whatever” on any of the three criteria – indifference, disbelief or offensiveness.



Yeah, right. Whatever.

 

 

Question 6. Were John Reed and Jane Eyre really of the same blood? It seems curious to think it.

Comment.

State whether, given the chance, you would like to wring Jane’s neck.                                          

 
Answer:
 John Reed’s father and Jane Eyre’s mother were, apparently, full siblings.

Yet John Reed was thoroughly unpleasant and acted appallingly throughout the narrative, coming to a bad end as befits such a reprehensible person. Jane, in contrast, was quite wonderful, without blemish of any kind as we are repeatedly told from start to finish, and gained (therefore) a happy outcome.

It is certainly unusual for two members of the same family to be so annoying in such very different ways.

Candidates may cite the Nature versus Nurture debate, but should point out that the situation here flies in the face of current psychological teaching which insists that kindness and love are good and cruel neglect is bad. In the novel the ministrations of a doting, besotted mother resulted in a horrible boy, while a desolate childhood devoid of affection gave forth the angelic Jane with all her blameless virtues. That ruins the "Nurture" argument.

As for the "Nature", one can only conclude that Mr Reed and Mrs Eyre had recessive genes and the two cousins inherited all their characteristics from the other parents. Either that or Mrs Reed strayed and John and Jane actually share no genes.

 

     Candidates may be forgiven for expressing a wish to wring Jane’s neck. Her resolute integrity certainly makes her a little tedious, not to say wet and infuriating. The unbelievable pieces of good luck which befell her – her wandering penniless to the door of strangers who turned out to be her own cousins; her sudden inheritance of a vast fortune; the undying love of Mr Rochester and his timely widowhood – serve to turn the reader against her, and a murderous reaction is quite natural.

     Extra marks will be awarded to candidates who express the opinion that if Jane is meant to be a self-portrait of the author then Charlotte Brontë could do with being strangled as well.

    The examiners feel it their duty here to stress the following : killing people is illegal and furthermore it directly contravenes the Sixth Commandment so it would be better really if candidates contented themselves with administering a playful smack around the face with a wet fish in both cases.

I DARE you. I DARE you to wet fish me.

Go on then - wet fish her. I dare you.