Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Stuff and Nonsense by Amy Cockram is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Someone with whom I am friends on Facebook had a link show to show that they were reading a "Guardian" article entitled "Why Women Have Sex." I thought that the article sounded interesting - depending on who you talk to, I either have an academic interest in the psychology of sex or I have a dirty mind (maybe both) - so I had a quick look.
I haven't read the whole article because I got distracted by one particular line. According to the book that the article is about, there are 237 reasons why women have sex (very specific), but largely we are seduced by genetic benefits (a man with whom we could have cute and clever babies) or resource benefits (bugger what the babies might look like - I'll go on the pill - because he has lots of money and a nice house).
I'm simplifying this, and actually it sounds like the book itself is an intelligent study that follows the groundbreaking work done by Kinsey, but the article itself is occasionally flippant. And, of all the things that I could have taken exception to, I object to the writer's throwaway line that "Jane Eyre, I think, can be read as a love letter to a big house."
So here is where I get to the point of my title: I'm a Rochester girl. That means I'm a little bit introverted, but stoic and resourceful (unlike a Heathcliff girl who, when crossed, is more prone to finding a nearby moor on which to bewail herself). It also means that I don't accept that Jane loves Rochester's house more than Rochester himself. I haven't read Jane Eyre for a few years so I don't think I can marshal a compelling analytical argument, but as a Rochester girl my entire being rises in revolt against her facetious comment. My argument reduces to this: moody and taciturn he may be but, hell, I still fancy him. The big house is a nice added bonus.
I think that I do have one analytical point to refute the writer's statement: if Jane only loves Rochester for his house, surely *spoiler alert* she would ditch the broken Rochester at the end of the novel when she realises that Thornfield Hall has been burned down?