Rochester of Jane Eyre

I really enjoyed Wide Sargasso Sea. It's probably my favorite out of everything we've read so far; everything is so interesting and complicated (one word that kept showing up in the article for my group's panel presentation was "problematic", which I think fits)! After finishing the novel, something that I've been curious (and perhaps even a bit concerned) about is how reading it before Jane Eyre will shape my view of Rochester. I've never read Jane Eyre, mostly due to disinterest, but also partially due to some sort of unreasonable (and perhaps untraceable) bias. It seemed like one of those stuffy Victorian novels where nothing really happens, and all the characters are dull and pretentious. But having read Wide Sargasso Sea, I can't help but wonder what about Jane Eyre was so provoking that Jean Rhys had to go out and write a whole other novel ("fanfiction", I think Mr. Mitchell jokingly dubbed it) about it, and how Rochester in this other book presented. 

When I search up terms like "rochester jane eyre" or "rochester's character in jane eyre", I get results that include stuff like "Byronic hero", "conventional romantic hero", "passionate", or "extremely appealing and sensual". Now, that really goes against all of my biases towards that awful asshole (okay, like Christophine said, he's "not a bad man", in that he's not bad through and through, but I feel as though this reflects my current sense of indignation). Some search results attempt to convince me otherwise and explain how I'd be hard pressed to not fall in love with him due to Bronte's writing, especially considering how easy it'd be to put myself in Jane's shoes (honestly, in this aspect, Jane Eyre is more fan-fiction-esque than Wide Sargasso Sea). Again, I've never read the book, so I might really be qualified to make a judgement. However, going off of some less convincing (and more so infuriating) search results, I'm very inclined to believe that Rochester is still (if we take Wide Sargasso Sea as his legitimate history) a person of pretty low caliber.

"how old is rochester in jane eyre": Rochester is 37 and Jane is 18 when they meet. So, he's twice her age. Awesome. He's totally not taking advantage of this girl who he's employed as a governess (that's another power dynamic that totally won't skew things!) and her lack of experience. Sure, you can tell me to not judge stuff in the past with the lens of now (or something better worded than that, probably), or that love is love, but it really can't change the fact that there are inherent (and significant) imbalances to their relationship, right off the bat. 

Mr. Rochester is a Creep: A List: I don't agree with #7 (honestly I think that's a very biased--am I the pot calling the kettle black?--way of looking at things), but if all the other examples are true, Rochester seems to be secretive, manipulative, and possessive (who knew?!?). 

Mr. Edward Rochester: The author of this piece is trying to justify Rochester's horrible personality ("always on the edge of violence, likes to order people around, keeps his wife locked in the attic, and teases Jane on at least one occasion until she cries... that’s why he’s so awesome"), and basically tells us everything's okay because "passion" and "moral relativity" and how Jane's different from all the other women and changes him. Uh huh. 

Yes, my analysis might be overboard or a product of confirmation bias (also, it's not extensive enough to actually obtain that much credibility, but...). But if you really don't believe me, please check out those links yourself. Actually, what confounds me isn't that Rochester is still horrible in Jane Eyre, but rather that lots of people seem to like him (check out the Goodreads page on the book). What merit does he really have? Is Bronte's writing really that compelling? Am I misunderstanding something fundamental? Do I have to read Jane Eyre to figure things out for myself? If I read it and still don't understand, is it because I'm already too biased from Wide Sargasso Sea? 

Meursault's Morality

Meursault doesn't seem to have much sympathy for anything. This can be evidenced by his lack of opinion on Salamano's treatment of his dog, and also by how the Arab that he murdered never crosses his mind in the second part of the novel. In general, 'normal' people would feel bad for both of those things (in these cases, because they're obviously wrong); maybe "poor dog" or "holy shit I ended a man's life". Meursault doesn't feel bad, and it also doesn't really seem like he can make a distinction between what's wrong and what's not (and to him, maybe it doesn't matter). We can say that he's trying to maintain impartiality, but what if it's not that he's trying, but just that he does? As we've said in class, he's very attuned to the present and his physical comfort, but he doesn't seem to think much more past that. Actually, we're never told that Meursault feels any sort of remorse or guilt for his murder of the Arab, or that he even really thinks about what he actually did.

Because Meursault doesn't seem to have sympathy or the ability to distinguish right from wrong (or at least form an opinion on right verses wrong that he can share with the world), it might be reasonable to say that he doesn't have a very developed sense of morality. Morality, in a quick Google search, can be defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". If we take this definition and hold Meursault up to it, the lack of such a thing is pretty consistent with his behavior. Meursault doesn't hold his actions up to any principles that make a distinction between right and wrong or good and bad. He does things because they serve his immediate physical comfort or state of being. He doesn't look at their implications or far-flung effects. He doesn't really think about how his actions may affect someone else (telling Marie that he doesn't think that he loves her, killing another man...).

One thing to take into consideration, however, is that the people that know Meursault don't seem to dislike him for this lack of morality. Marie, Celeste, Emmanuel... They all seem to get along with and like him pretty well. Maybe this is because Meursault has adopted 'normal' social customs (no matter his opinion or lack of opinion on them) and is able to blend in. Or maybe, it's because those people don't really mind, because the contexts in which they've interacted with him haven't been very strenuous. Is it okay to not have a developed sense of morality, as long as you're contained in situations that don't require it?