Talk:Jane Eyre

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 13 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FryWrites, Angrycabbagemerchant, Bcade. Peer reviewers: Jlago11, Tackeret, Roghikt, BornUnderPunches, Turquoise98, Mrichardson4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilykomornik.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

New link
I would like to propose a new link for your Jane Eyre page: http://www.bl.uk/works/jane-eyre

This British Library’s site includes the autograph fair copy manuscript of Jane Eyre, as well as numerous contextual sources – Charlotte Bronte’s letters and diaries (http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/charlotte-brontes-journal, http://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/search?q=bronte+letter ) the Bronte children’s juvenilia (http://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/search?q=juvenilia ), a book written by the Reverend Carus Wilson (the founder of the school on which Lowood is based). It also includes articles written by leading scholars – e.g. Professor Sally Shuttleworth and Professor John Bowen (http://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/search?q=bronte&content_type=article ); and films created at the Bronte Parsonage (http://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/videos ). Surely this material will enrich users’ understanding of the novel and help illuminate the context in which the work was written.

19thcenturylit (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19thcenturylit (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

spoiler location
I believe the "Spoilers end here" portion should be moved after "Background". Read: Helen Burns

Can't anybody get a better image than one from SNL? Really, people. That image detracts from the whole article, even with the caption that states it's satirical. And a screenshot from any other real version of Jane Eyre would probably be more 'fair use' than this one is. --TexasDex 23:13, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the image is not informative nor appropriate to be at the top of the article. I have moved it and the caption here to the talk page below. -- Infrogmation 23:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought the very same thing about a month or so ago and went picture hunting but could not find anything satisfactory. The only thing I like was this painting, but I couldn't find a full size version. Gamaliel 23:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't belive that the Saturday Night Live comedion would do that weird picture of Jane EYRE ethior.

Quotes section
Quotes section is too long should go to Wikiquote. Mandel 07:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have shortened this section and added a link to the Jane Eyre Wikiquote entry, as requested. --Psipes 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Musical
It's also been adapted into a (quite nice) musical. I'll try to add something about that later, but anyone who wants to do a little research and help, that'd be great. -- WikidSmaht 19:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Breaking Benjamin Video
I have something to add. The music video for "The Diary of Jane" by Braking Benjamin the tomb stone at the end reads Jane Eyre.
 * (I added the title to break this from the entry on Jane Eyre the musical.) The grave at the end of the BB video looks more like "Jane Bryan" - do you have a source from that band that contradicts this?  If not, I think it remains speculation.  Thanks! Cabiria 12:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it is Jane Brayan sorry to bother you.

Mesrour
Someone has suggested that the article Mesrour (Rochester's horse) be merged with this article. I'm all for it, since it seems to be inadequately notable for an encyclopedia article and could merge quite neatly into what is already here. Any comments? Onlyemarie 04:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree - go ahead. CarolGray 08:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Uuhhh...sure, but does Rochester's horse really nead mentioning?


 * I can't help but think that since Mesrour has so very little significance in the story, it should not be added into the Jane Eyre article. It wouldn't really fit comfortably into the article any way. I can't find any logical place it could go when I read it. In and of itself, the horse does have some meaning and some small bit of significance, so I think that if it should be included on Wikipedia at all, it should be any article by itself, not a part of thee Jane Eyre article.  67.141.209.6 14:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Mosier


 * Someone actually created an article about Rochester's horse? The mane is mentioned no more than a couple of times in the book. --Shayan g 07:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * heh, I don't see why there's an article on Mesrour and not Pilot... it seens to me that Pilot plays a bigger part... ~Sushi 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

keep mesrour
There should be an entry for Mesrour, I think, but it should mention the Arabian Nights first, rather than Jane Eyre. Mesrour was originally a character from these tales; the name was widely appropriated in the 19C as a reference to blackness and/or the Orient (in Vanity Fair, the Eastern traveller Bedwin Sands has a black slave named Mesrour; H. Rider Haggard's The Brethren also features a eunuch named Mesrour).

--- For Place Names
Joes anyone know why there are - in the book where there should be place names?


 * eh, I have no idea, but it's really annoying... I thought it wuz just an error in the book that I wuz reading (like the publishers, not the single book in itself) ~Sushi 05:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This was a common device used in 18th and 19th century texts, to create the effect of omitting information for propriety's sake. It could be that Jane Eyre might want to conceal information about her exact identity or whereabouts to the reader. Or Charlotte Bronte may have not wanted to reveal that Lowood was in Lancashire because then it would be even more obvious that Lowood was based on the Clergymen daughters school that she attended in real life. So, Lowood is located in -shire.


 * This was a really common device. For example in Persuasion by Jane Austen the book is all about Anne Eliot. Austen mentions her name a million times, the Eliots this, the Eliot pride... But when Anne is given a letter it is addressed to A. E---. ChristineD 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution
Can anyone tell me if there are any references to the Industrial Rev. in JE? I know that it was written a bit before the major boom happened but, any ideas?


 * None that I can think of. Economics enters mainly via the plantation system in the West Indies, and trade via Madeira.  Remember, too, that the book is set 20-30 years before it was written, and in the isolated north of England.Exitr 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is mention of a needle factory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.129.63 (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Might I be allowed to add in the Criticism section the common opinion that the book is terribly boring? I can site sources. Of course these sources will range in age from approx. 13 to approx. 45 and be of both genders. I should have no trouble finding many such opinions. --72.12.30.143 07:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I take it this is a joke from someone forced to read the book over the summer. I guess this person doesn't know anyone over the age of 45, or figures that people older than that don't count. --Psipes 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the book has many fans, I see no reason why it should not be criticised for being boring, so long as it is completely justified with sources. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and although I cannot for the life of me think why, I appreciate that some may find the novel dull and this viewpoint could be addressed in the article. 14.07 11th Aug 06

I don't quite see the significance of a book being criticized for being boring, since this is so common a criticism it can be applied to (really) any book, and so highly objective that everyone has to decide for himself (after all there are some people who seem to actually have enjoyed 'Jane Eyre'). Imagine yourself in the position of an Editor giving reasons why he would want to turn a book down:

Editor self #1: "Well, I think it's boring."

Boss #1:" So, why is it boring ?"

Editor self #1: "Well, it doesn't have pictures or dialogues.."

Boss #1: "I see, books without pictures or dialogues, really..."

Now contrast this with...

Editor self #2: "Well, I think it's boring."

Boss #2: "So, why is it boring ?"

Editor self #2: "You know what boring is, no? B-O-R-I-N-G? As opposed to interesting? I fell asleep at least twice. I wished I could die on the spot, that kind of boring."

Boss #2: "Ah, yes, I see. You mean it's boring. You really have a point there. Send the rejection letter out, telling the author his book is boring, so he sees we really don't dismiss him just so. "

Wouldn't you rather be Editor self #1 ? 15:43, 13/08/2006

I had the misfortune of reading this book for english class about a dozen years ago. It lasted 500+ pages and NOTHING HAPPENED. It's like sitting in an empty room without the benefit of watching paint dry! Still, I highly recommend it to insomniacs -- it'll put you to sleep faster than an ambien overdose. Should I point out that rating this book as "top priority" is a total joke? -- DragonAtma 71.247.238.133 10:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Um - I think somebod got me wrong there...the second example was really an example of BAD argumentation (I fell asleep...). NOTHING HAPPENED is really pointless, because Jane grows up, her best friend dies from tuberculosis, she falls for Rochester (who seems to have stepped from a Byron Poem), lives in a haunted hause, gets to the point of almost making vows, when last-minute, it is revealed that the groom already has a wive, who attacks him with tooth and claw the same day, Jane runs away and sleeps in the heath, BY ACCIDENT finds part of her family and makes up some injustice to them and is almost forced to travel to India as Missionary and her Cousin's wife, when finally....I see, that's not really much action. There should also be some explosions, a pirate, a dog, and casual nudity.

Lisalogic 19:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There IS a dog: Pilot, not to mention the spectral hound which gives Jane a fright on the moors. Colin4C 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and if you count the scene where Jane saves Rochester's live by pouring water over the sleeping man, there might also be some casual nudity, and some explosions when Thornfield finally falls to ashes.....yet I don't see the pirate coming into the picture...wait, is there not a scene where the lovely Blanche tells Rochester he looks like a robber...if i'm right she also tells him he looks like a pirate, but she lies anyway.

So, the book has everything, and thus is perfect. I think we should also keep our eyes open for a good-looking vampire, I'm sure there is one to be found somewhere - ah yes, the cousin...

Lisalogic 19:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, This whole section should not be listed in the discussion; this is for refinement of the article and for personal opinions of the book. If there is to be a section on literary criticism of the novel it should probably be focused more on the devolupment of literary motifs and gothic imagery and not on the fact that it is "boring." Even if the novel is boring, which it most certainly is not, it still deserves to be treated with respect and taken for what is it: an important example of the early British novel. The argument that "nothing happens" in the novel remains a silly arguement as great many excellent novels contain storys where relatively little takes place i.e. Marcel Proust's "In Search of Lost Time" and Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises." If you are looking for a novel where aliens invade and the universe goes to war, then you should probably avoid reading "Jane Eyre," and you most certainly should avoid writing on the discussion page.Mrathel


 * So you're suggesting that, because you enjoy the book and find it 'important', any true criticism of it should be stricken from both the article itself and from the discussion pages?75.139.197.15 (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I for one found the book to be very interesting and not at all boring. It took me a week to read but only because I had a lot of exams at school that week. Whoever says Jane Eyre is a boring book does not know the meaning of boring because the book is filled with interesting events as have been listed here above. Oh and by the way I am 17 years old and therefore not older than 45. 194.144.130.251 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Icelander

I feel that the only way you could find this novel boring is if you didn't understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.40.135 (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Bertha's supposed syphilitic infection
I believe this idea is from the book Can Jane Eyre Be Happy: More Puzzles In Classic Literature by John Sutherland, but I haven't read it myself so I'm not sure if he originated this thought or if he cites other scholars who originated it.

I've removed the entire Critcism section because the issue of syphilis seems just a tiny tangent of the enormous amount of scholarly criticism that exists on Jane Eyre. If someone is willing to tackle a more comprehensive survey of this topic, fine; otherwise it seems odd to focus on this one topic. --Psipes 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Nice Article

Reinterpretation of Mr Rochesters Motives
This IS from 'Can Jane Eyre be Happy...' by John Sutherland. I'll put it here for now but I think (with a bit more work) it can go in the article.

John Sutherland reinterpretes Mr Rochesters motives entirely. He claims that his wooing of Miss Blanche Ingram was NOT to make Jane jealous but because he wanted to marry Blanch. Then the relatives of his first wife, Bertha, told him privately that they had heard that he was planning bigamy, that they were keeping an eye on him, so he'd better think again. Thus Rochester got rid of Blanche against his will. The argument continues that, as Mr Rochester still wanted to get married, he had to pick someone obscure enough to fall under the radar of his first wife's family. Thus he picked Jane NOT because he was in love with her but because she was available and sufficiently unimportant. I can't remember if there was more to the argument. The essay then ends on a chilling note, suggesting that once Mr Rochester gets his eyesight back he will be an attractive member of society and he might then have better opportunities than Jane, making her unhappy. ChristineD 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is not the slightest hint in the novel to support Sutherland's interpretation. (Apart from the fact that if the first wife's relatives had hypothetically (!) heard about his intention to marry again and had (again hypothetically) warned him about that, they would have watched the not-at-all obscure member of the gentry Mr Rochester himself, not some potential brides.) 2003:7A:8E0E:8229:D4AF:2152:486B:FAC7 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Beauty of Lowood chapters
Can we get some specific examples of people in the field of literature who believe the Lowood chapters feature some of the most beautiful rhetoric in English, rather than saying "many" hold this opinion in the background section?

Adélè
At the start of the book (at least, when Jane first meets her) the girl she's suppoz to teach is called Adela. Later this changes to Adéle. In this article, it says Adélè. What's her real name? ~Sushi 05:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Her name is Adèle. In the book, Mrs. Fairfax sometimes calls her Adèla - whether by mistake or on purpose is not made clear. --Psipes 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think 'Adela' is used as the britannized version of 'Adèle'. That's why Jane uses the name throughout, I believe(though am not sure). Since Rochester has learned to disapprove of the gaul spirit, he uses 'Adèle' mostly by way of mockery.

Lisalogic 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

infobox location
Infobox added, to the best of my ability. May need some better editing.--Psipes 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Yes in the book they use Adela and Adele but that is because her name is in French so therefore she can use both names, but mean the same thing mimirris

Wide Sargasso Sea
I've moved the info about Wide Sargasso Sea from the Criticism section to the Related works section. Although it can be read as a criticism of Jane Eyre, it can also be read as coexisting with the ideals of Jane Eyre, depending on how you interpret each work. In any case, discussion of this novel as a critique of Jane Eyre would fit better on the Wide Sargasso Sea Wikipedia entry. --Psipes 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming
I don't think this renaming is a good idea. Where there is one name which is by far the most common (as is the case here), it should be under that title. If Jane Eyre (the character) is made into an article, the approprite naming scheme would look like this:

Jane Eyre -the page about the novel

Jane Eyre (disambiguation) -containing links to all the others:

Jane Eyre (character) Jane Eyre (musical) Jane Eyre (opera) etc.

Z iggurat 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what exactly you have a problem with. As far as the novel being the most common article, I'm sure that's true,  but I found many links on the "What links here" page that were for the various film adaptations or the character.  I'm following the instructions laid out on the Disambiguation page for creating a disambiguation page.  I, personally, was looking for the film(s) (after having found the novel's page) and was sent directly to the novel; I would rather be sent directly to the disambiguation page and then be able to choose which page to go to. -Shannernanner 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add: upon re-reading, that seemed to come off rather snarky, and that's not how I meant it at all, I was just trying to be clear. :-) -Shannernanner 01:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No probs, I'm sure I come off as snarky as well :) Basically, given that all the other sources are adaptations of the book, and the book is by far the best-known work under this name (if I asked someone what Jane Eyre was, they're almost certain to think of the book), it seems to obviously qualify as a primary topic, in which case the disambiguation page should be at Jane Eyre (disambiguation) rather than Jane Eyre. This method is the standard, see for example Brave New World, Heart of Darkness, Sense and Sensibility, and lots more. Z iggurat 03:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but I'm still not sure I agree. Jane Eyre encompasses the novel, 17 film and television adaptations, the character, two actresses, various comics adaptations, a Broadway musical, a Broadway play, and an opera--and that's just what I've figured out from cleaning up some of the links.  Many of those, while "arguably" not as prominent as the novel, are prominent--whereas, just using the examples you listed, the Brave New World disambiguation page contains only one film adaptation and then various other things that people "probably" wouldn't expect to be a main article; Heart of Darkness, the same; and Sense and Sensibility contains only the book and film adaptation. Perhaps someone else should chime in here, because I'm not sure we're going to come to a consensus. :-) -Shannernanner 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems like something of an ad-hoc argument to me. I'm offering some examples of what seems to be the standard - if you can suggest counterexamples where the disambig arrangement is the same as the one you've introduced here it'd be useful, because I can't find any from a quick perusal of Category:Novels. But yeah, some more eyes would certainly be appropriate here :) Z iggurat 04:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you just want examples, I thought of one while I was posting before that I had just seen, but couldn't remember what it was; I just recalled it--David Copperfield. One other I found with a bit of looking was Sophie's Choice. -Shannernanner 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, David Copperfield I could see, seeing as there are at least two completely different major topics there (the book and the magician). Sophie's Choice not quite so appropriate. Nevertheless, I'm interested in other opinions on the matter! Z iggurat 05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, you can make fun of me for that one, I was focused on looking up the book at the time and thought it interesting that it went to the disambiguation page. LOL -Shannernanner 05:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ziggurat. The article about the original novel should be named "Jane Eyre", and film and musicals versions listed at Jane Eyre (disambiguation). Wuthering Heights is a good example to copy here. CarolGray 09:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Well, we've only got three opinions here, which doesn't exactly qualify as a consensus, but since no one else seems to have an opinion on the issue, and my main goal was just to create a disambiguation page, and I'm eager to go ahead and do that, I'll just go with returning this to its original title. :-) -Shannernanner 06:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Readers would expect to find the novel when they search for Jane Eyre, so that should be in the un-disambiguated form with all others linked from a disambiguation page. Tim! 09:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hat Note
Saying Jane Eyre redirects here when the page is names Jane Eyre, is, IMO, both redundant and confusing. I stronly suggest a different hat note. Eluchil404 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed; 'Jane Eyre' does not redirect here, so the old notice is incorrect. I've changed it back. Z iggurat 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't have anything ivested in a particular wording, but the redirect claim is simply not accurate. Eluchil404 21:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What DID Helen die of?
The article says:
 * "Helen accepts earthly sufferings, including her own premature death from consumption (now known as tuberculosis), with calmness and a martyr-like attitude."

http://www.19thnovels.com/janeeyre.php?c=9 (an online version of the book) says:
 * "That forest-dell, where Lowood lay, was the cradle of fog and fog- bred pestilence; which, quickening with the quickening spring, crept into the Orphan Asylum, breathed typhus through its crowded schoolroom and dormitory, and, ere May arrived, transformed the seminary into an hospital."

What, truly, did Helen Burns die of? --Marudita
 * I believe the book says that she died of consumption, during a typhus outbreak. Here:
 * "But Helen was ill at present: for some weeks she had been removed from my sight to I knew not what room upstairs. She was not, I was told, in the hospital portion of the house with the fever patients; for her complaint was consumption, not typhus..."  Shannernanner   11:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just checking. =P 72.185.89.72
 * What is consumption? Does the book say?


 * Consumption is an old name for tuberculosis. 124.169.77.116 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)DrC

Currer Bell
I don't think this part of the article is true:


 * It was also after the publication of Jane Eyre that Charlotte decided to reveal the true identity of Currer Bell, which put an end to some great public effort to pinpoint the book's author (even Thackeray himself had been among the nominees, and it may be noted here that Charlotte's dedicating the book to him was to cause her some greater embarrassment, when she found out about the parallels between the book's plot and Thackeray's domestic situation).

As far as I'm aware Charlotte Bronte used the pseudonym 'Currer Bell' for all the novels she wrote and published after 'Jane Eyre' (her first book). What she DID do was disassociate 'Currer Bell' from the novels produced by Ellis and Acton Bell (aka Emily and Anne Bronte - her sisters) which an unscrupulous publisher intimated were all produced by the same author, i.e. 'Currer Bell'. Some of the literati, such as Thackeray and Gaskell, eventually discovered that Currer Bell was in fact a woman called Charlotte Bronte, but this was not revealed to the general public until after her second novel. Colin4C 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Juliet Barker's 'The Brontes' (1994) Currer Bell's true identity as 'the daughter of the Rev P. Bronte' was revealed by the Bradford Observer on 28th Feb 1850, after the publication of 'Shirley': her second novel. But even despite this her third novel 'Villette' was still ascribed to 'Currer Bell' as the author. Charlotte Bronte did not want her true identity revealed to the public. Colin4C 20:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

==> pertaining to: Currer Bell

I have NOT claimed that Charlotte actually stopped using the pseudonym of 'Currer Bell', but it is well true that Currer's true form then became known to people other than family and (eventually) publisher. For the contents of the paragraph I referred to Lucasta Miller's book "The Bronte Myth", just this book is currently at home, where I'll get tomorrow. It also describes, how, after the revelation, Charlotte was circled among the literati as a dinner party guest, but still failed to turn out some witty comebacks. After all, she was Charlotte Bronte, not Dorothy Parker.

It is possible (i cannot check this now) that 'Shirley' was published before the revelation was made, yet this would still place the event 'after' the publication of Jane Eyre. The way Miller describes it, there was a huge bustle about the book in general and its author especially. It's not like people were looking for the author of 'Shirley'.

That being said, tomorrow I shall give you all the quotes you could possibly want, but maybe it should be added that Charlotte bronte kept using the pseudonym. I hope we'll be able to agree on this one, since I also have the Barker biography, and it diverts from the Miller book already on the first pages, when we learn about the creation of the Bronte name (Branty -> Bronte). there's nothing like two books on the same topic to make you dissatisfied.

Lisalogic 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If Charlotte Bronte had wanted to reveal who Currer Bell was why did she not put her name on ANY of the novels published in her lifetime? The whole point about a pseudonym is that people won't recognise who you are. Charlotte Bronte was, in fact, severely embarrassed when AFTER the publication 'Shirley' the Bradford Observer connected 'Currer Bell' with 'the daughter of P. Bronte': so much so that she wanted her next novel 'Villette' to come out completely anonymously so that it wouldn't be connected to her through the now blown identity of 'Currer'. Her publishers however overruled her: 'Currer Bell' was a big draw for their readership. Charlotte even wrote an (unpublished) introduction to Shirley in the name of Currer Bell, under a male guise as the aforesaid Currer was imagined by many to a man: the 'naughty' and 'coarse' nature of 'Jane Eyre' proved as much...Colin4C 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Colin is right in that Bronte did not want her identity revealed to the general public. In a letter quoted by her biographer Elizabeth Gaskell, Bronte wrote "The most profound obscurity is preferable to vulgar notoriety: and that notoriety I neither seek nor will have." The secret began seeping out when a clever Howath man recgonized the local dialect in Shirley and became convinced that the author lived in the vicinity. He could not imagine who in the village could have produced such a work apart from Charlotte Bronte and published his suspicions in a Liverpool newspaper. When Bronte visited London to meet her publishers for the first time in 1849 her identity became definitely known, although she continued to publish under a pseuydonyn. It is true that Bronte was embarrased buy her dedication of the novel to Thackeray, as unknown to her his wife had been commited to an asylum. Perhaps this information should be included in the Charlotte Bronte article. I have just enjoyed a nice cuppa thank you! Natalie West 00:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Calm, there. I never claimed that she WANTED it in the first place. I will check everything tomorrow, and if you're right, you shall be given right. In the meantime, I suggest a cup of tea; I see no point in arguing about things I cannot verify.

Lisalogic 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

o.k., this is bad - got home, no books. Either books are lost in stack (I have quite a lot) or possibly abduction of Bronte Myth and Entourage from apartment by brother(who has bad book-stealing habits). I'd go for the second, since there seems not a scrap of secondary Bronte left. Since I am at the moment not in the position to quote, let Colin change what he will, on the whole I believe to disagree with him considerably less than he obviously thinks, and neither wanted to state that Charlotte actively dropped her incognito or stopped using her alias. Let me just point out that the logic is not completely flawless in

"If Charlotte Bronte had wanted to reveal who Currer Bell was why did she not put her name on ANY of the novels published in her lifetime? The whole point about a pseudonym is that people won't recognise who you are." all the while admitting that her identity HAD been revealed at some time, and Charlotte kept using the pseudonym

"As far as I'm aware Charlotte Bronte used the pseudonym 'Currer Bell' for all the novels she wrote and published after 'Jane Eyre' (her first book)."

maybe there are, after all, reasons for using the pseudonym, apart from anonymity. (as soon as the name 'sells')

"What she DID do was disassociate 'Currer Bell' from the novels produced by Ellis and Acton Bell (aka Emily and Anne Bronte - her sisters) which an unscrupulous publisher intimated were all produced by the same author, i.e. 'Currer Bell'[..]" Have a good night out there, and probably one more cup of tea, thank you for the discussion, which was quite lovely.Lisalogic 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So --after the books could not be found anywhere, and I'd finally settled on them having been stolen in December together with my suitcase (I don't really keep track of what I carry with me at what time), they reappeared in a drawer of my Brussels bureau. so finally, the quote I had been looking for all along: 'Smith, Elder were, however, anxious that her tone was both too flippant and too aggressive. They suggested that the time had come for her to drop her veil and reveal the identities of the Bell brothers to the world. Charlotte was initially fortright in her desire to let rip against the Quarterly while retaining her anonimity, witing to William Smith Williams on 31 August "'C Bronte' must not here appear; what she feels or has felt is not the question - it is 'Currer Bell' who was insulted - he must reply. Let Mr. Smith fearlessly print the preface I have sent." In the event, however, she dropped the idea, having been persuaded that going on the offensive in such tones was ill-advised. Instead, she was gradually becoming reconciled to the idea of revealing herself to the literary world as Charlotte Bronte.[...] Now that her secret was out among her Yorkshire acquaintance, and now that Emily - wha had been more determined than either of the others to maintain their cover - was dead, there seemed little point in trying to maintain a charade of secrecy. 'Currer Bell' would of course remain the name on Charlotte's book covers. But her curiousity about seeing the 'literary coteries' of London was beginning to get the better of her.[..]A year on, Charlotte made a decided attempt to clear her dead sisters - and by association herself - from any imputation of immorality. [..] She decided to make their identities public, but to use the fact that they were female as a plea in mitigation rather than a stick to beat them with.'Lucasta Miller, 'The bronte Myth' pps 19-24 Lisalogic 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unclear Use of Pronoun
In the following line, it appears that Jane wishes to speak to Aunt Read, whereas in the book Aunt Reed sends for Jane.

As the house party continues, Jane receives a visit from her Aunt's coachman, informing her that her Aunt Reed is dying after suffering a stroke, and wishes to speak with her.

Interesting point. I read the line to read her Aunt wished to speak with her. Later the passage spoke about the letter for Jane withheld from Jane by her Aunt and confirmed my reading of the line. I missed the ambiquity here, perhaps deliberate. The passage also states the Aunt rejected Janes' attempt at reconcilliation, suggesting Jane also had a wish connected with the meeting.

Here seems a core conflict between Jane and her Aunt. Jane seeks independence and forgiveness. This defines relationships for her. Her Aunt accepts her dependent status and seems unwilling to forgive and this was the status of relationships in the culture. 71.53.195.160 (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Dennis W

Unjustified Deletion of Referenced Material
I have restored unjustifiably deleted referenced and relevent material on the literary allusions and Gothic aspects of Jane Eyre. Colin4C 17:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Unjustified Deletion of Referenced Material
Unless the literary allusions are explained (the previous version of the article just says they simply exist), and unless a page number is given for Davies' introduction, I think they should be removed. Furthermore, what was wrong with the more detailed plot summary, the character list, or the theme descriptions of the page you deleted? Could you explain why you deleted them, Colin4C?

[above comment unsigned]


 * You have deleted referenced relevent material derived from notable Bronte scholar Davies and then replaced it with your own totally unreferenced original research. That is not the way the wikipedia works. Also you should sign your own name after your comments here, not my name! Colin4C 09:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Including Previous Version's References, Other Material in Expanded Version
You're right about the signature and keeping the previous version's referenced material. However, most of the first version of the article was not referenced. Only the literary allusions and the autobiographical aspects, a mere two paragraphs, were. There was no call to delete all my additions, which are extremely difficult to reference. Practically no Wikipedia article includes references for character lists, for example. I am uploading my version again, but this time I am including all the references and text of the motifs, literary allusions, and autobiographical aspects from the previous version. As for my other additions (character list, themes, expanded synopsis), check out Cliffsnotes or some such website to verify them. Massyold 15:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Partly Autobiographical"
In the Plot Introduction there is the statement Jane Eyre was "partly autobiographical". That implies much...like the idea that Charolotte might have fallen in love with her employer(?) I don't remember anything of that sort in the several Bronte Biographies. Could someone enlighten me why Jane Eyre was "partly autobiographical"? Was it the stories of her time at school when she was young (based on the school she and her sisters attended) - should it then say that some earler sections of the book were autobiographical? Because much of the book is concerned with the Jane/Rochester relationship...I found it startingly as if there was a love affair I was unaware of concerning an employer.

In 1824 the four eldest Bronte sisters were sent to a boarding school for daughters of the clergy. Maria and Elizabeth were taken ill there and died in 1825. Charlotte later fictionalized the school as Lowood in Jayne Eyre. Maybe the article could be more specific on this point. The character of Rochester has been said by some critics to have been partly inspired by the Bronte women's dissolute brother. Natalie West 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

____ If someone can work that appropriately in, that would be great although I have to say the sentence flows much better as it is, I don't want to make it sound like a laundry list of emends —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.3.151.34 (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason it says that it is partly autobiographical is because the book is written as if Jane Eyre was a real character writing an autobiography about her life. This is why the book sometimes speaks directly to the reader, as seen at the beginning of Chapter 38 "Dear reader, I married him." Not that Charlotte Bronte is writing an autobiography.GaretJax777 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've incorporated a bit about this famous sentence in the page now. Laurier  (xe or they) (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Categorization
Psyche825 (and anyone else who's interested),

Let's discuss this here so we don't get bogged down in an edit war: I take exception to your categorizing this novel as a "romance" novel. The terminology is misleading and could confuse well-meaning people; furthermore, if you look at it a certain way, it is tremendously condescending. Here's why I think so:
 * First of all, the "romance" is a specific genre of literature that came to fruition in the (mostly French) Middle Ages, characterized by wildly implausible events taking place in a world that follows its own (highly stylized and often inconsistent) rules - Perceval, ou le conte du Graal is my personal favorite example, but maybe you have others. By calling Jane Eyre a "romance," we're going to confuse people familiar with "romance" in this context.
 * Secondly, and slightly more subjectively, "romance novel" in the non-academic sense that most people use it today was not a current term in the Brontës' time. Charlotte Brontë emphatically did not set out to write a light, escapist entertainment meant primarily for popular consumption. She took her work quite seriously, and situated herself firmly within the high tradition. This is why I find the usage condescending: it perpetuates the old, largely subconscious but still ever-present notion that women can't write serious literature, and that any book concerned primarily with love, courtship and marriage is somehow sub-canonical. Literate critics don't pigeonhole War and Peace as a "war novel" (in the same category as, say, Tom Clancy's work), The Brothers Karamazov as a "crime novel" (with Mickey Spillane's) or The Sorrows of Young Werther as a "romance novel" (with Danielle Steele's). They transcend the modern commercial genre categories and are recognized simply as "novels." Let's not put Charlotte Brontë down in the mire with the entertaining but subliterary pablum we now call "romance novels." She deserves much better.
 * As for the "Gothic" categorization, it's still problematic - implying that the book should be judged not on its merits as literature, but for its adherence to the "Gothic" formula - but there's at least a stronger historical basis for it.

Let's not forget that many of the people who will consult this article have never read Charlotte Brontë, and that some of them have probably never even heard of her. Let's treat her with the respect she deserves, and not allow anyone to fall into the trap of thinking Jane Eyre is just another "silly novel by a silly lady novelist."

I look forward to the rest of the discussion. Hubacelgrand 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not responding earlier. The reason I reinserted the "Romance" category was because Jane Eyre, in the words of the article on Romance novels, "[places its] primary focus on the relationship and romantic love between two people", and is even mentioned in the article. However, I understand your concern about the differences between the modern definition, the Mediaeval/Renaissance definition, and the popular conception of a romance novel, which is probably the most commonly used definition. Perhaps it isn't really necessary, as omitting it will avoid confusion, and most people will (hopefully) understand the intended definition by reading at least the "Plot introduction" section.
 * As for the Gothic category, I'm not sure I understand your argument. By classifying the novel as a Gothic, or even Romance, novel, we're not (or at least I'm not) intending to imply anything about the novel's merit, but instead trying to tell the reader what the novel is (very) basically about. I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm told a novel is a romance, I just think "it's about two people falling in love"; I don't make judgements on literary merit until I'm told whether it's by Jane Austen or Nora Roberts.
 * – Psyche825  (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Let's keep the Gothic, ditch the Romance, and hope no one's confused. Meanwhile, someone should clean up the Romance novel article so this fate doesn't befall, say, Anna Karenina. . . Hubacelgrand (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly 'romance' means different thinks to different readers of wikipedia. How can we deal with that I wonder? Whatever, I think the top paragraph should say something about how the book "focuses on the relationship and romantic love between two people", the topic isn't covered atall now. It says the publisher but nothing about the content. ee--78.86.146.148 (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"It is Brontë's strongest work"
I'm not sure if it's even possible to source this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmachine (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

New External Link
Hi all, I'd like to propose a new link for External Links. Per the comments in that section, I'm proposing it here first, rather than just adding the link. Proposed link:


 * Jane Eyre analysis on Shmoop - summary, themes, quotes, characters, essay writing guide, trivia, links to audio, video, photos.

This literary analysis is written for Shmoop by a 5th year Ph.D. in English at Berkeley. Jane Eyre is one of her very favorite books. She also teaches English to undergrads at Berkeley. Shmoop provides deep analysis of the novel (over 125 printed pages worth of original analysis) and also offers an interactive tool to help students organize their thoughts for a paper. The Shmoop coverage also includes a number of links to resources on other websites (video, audio, photos, related topics, etc.)

Thanks! Barriodude (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Barriodude added one of these links to Pride and Prejudice, and I was pretty suspicious of it, but I've just spent some time there and it really does seem to be a useful resource. Someone's sure to come along and say "he's adding all these links to the one site, it must be spam".  So I say have a look for yourself; if it's useful and doesn't duplicate what the existing links have to offer, what's wrong with having lots of links to it?  So long as each link is on a page where it actually belongs, it seems appropriate.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm one of those people. If we allow this, we'll have to allow every serial spammer through. I don't believe that's the right approach. - Dudesleeper / Talk  10:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely: spam is spam. Read Wikipedia's external links policy.  This is classic Spam and a conflict of interest on the part of the adding editor, whose user page acknowledges that they are trying to launch the site.  Besides, we want our articles to be excellent, complete articles, not stubs with long lists of links elsewhere.  -- Mwanner | Talk 12:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is hardly a stub! Not everything that is valuable belongs in WP itself - that's why we have ELs.  Note that Barriodude didn't just add the link to the article.  Having seen the instruction to discuss all new links to this page first, he came here to do so.  This hardly seems typical of a spammer.   -- Zsero (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever, it fails WP:EL. I will also point out that there should only be a handful of external links, and that there must be better choices if we really must have another link. I've read the link and frankly I'm not impressed. 13:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

Plot sections
I split the lengthy plot summary into the five sections discussed in the "Plot introduction" using the roman numeral forms of the chapter numbers as they appear in the original text. I don't like the way this looks and wonder if they should be rewritten in arabic numerals. Any thoughts? Autopilot (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I changed to arabic numerals after restoring the images. --Bensin (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great -- I like the images, too. There were some other changes that I had made to the text that were lost in the reversion to the earlier version with the images; I'll re-merge them.  --Autopilot (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I removed the part of Mr. Rochester calling Jane a witch when they meet on the road for the first time. While that does occur in the Masterpiece Theatre version of the story, it is not in the original book (Chapter XII). --Autopilot (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to Shorten the Plot Summary
Why does the plot summary need to be shortened; its all relevant to the original book - and its better to have more information than less. Its not inconvienient to read either; not with the introduction of the plot sections. I hope people don't mind if I delete the banner for now - you can always put it back there later if you feel I've done wrong. comment added by 78.147.245.79 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Plot summary has been shortened by User:Brittanyyclaire. It's down to around 1,000 words now. Roseclearfield (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Helen's death -- who is holding whom?
71.58.212.134 said ''Helen Burns does not die in Jane's arms. It is the other way around. She dies while holding onto Jane in a motherly fashion. This is significant because it adds to Jane's obsession with mother figures''. My reading of Chapter IX is unclear: I learned that Miss Temple, on returning to her own room at dawn, had found me laid in the little crib; my face against Helen Burns's shoulder, my arms round her neck. I was asleep, and Helen was--dead. --Autopilot (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Confused
Who would be the one with autism spectrum disorder??? Jane or the mad wife. The section on that does not seem to be very clear to me. Do we need to clean it up??? --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

20,000 pounds value?
In the synopsis, it mentions that Jane inherits her uncle's fortune of $20,000 pounds. Would it be helpful to mention in parenthesis something like "the equivelent of ____ today." (This would have to be updated periodically, of course.) Reading the book, and even today, I still don't know what that amount implies, or what the characters had to work with after Jane divided it 4 ways. Codenamemary (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You could just use the Inflation template which is automatically updated each year. Keith D (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that was a good idea and have added it. I used the 1848 date of publication for the initial date since I do not recall a time specified in the novel.  She's rich!

£20,000, equivalent to £0 in today's pounds


 * £20,000, equivalent to £0 in today's pounds
 * -- Autopilot (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh my! Or about two and a half million dollars, on this side of the pond! I imagine real estate was cheaper then, too. And the characters practically all seem to eat only bread and cheese and cold meat. (But then, they did have to pay servants. And keep horses.) Codenamemary (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This currently reads "equivalent to over £45.5 million in 2009, calculated using the share of GDP", which, although possibly mathematically correct, is just daft as an indication of value in today's terms. Was a shilling worth over £100 in today's money? By my rough calculations that would make your average farm labourer then richer than the average Briton today, which is clearly nonsense. The inflation template used previously is much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.33.168 (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Personally I find the whole comparison off-putting, but if we must have one, I vote for the inflation model. This is not an economics article. Scartol  •  Tok  20:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: using 1848 might be fair, but "Its setting is somewhere in the north of England, late in the reign of George III (1760–1820)" and see the note - could be after 1816? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Dead Link Removed. Anyone know how to get page out of "hidden" category "Articles with Dead Links"??
See subject line.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually that was not the dead link that had been properly flagged, and now it has been taken care of --WickerGuy (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:27, 29 July 2010
Original salary of 15 for teaching at Lowood was correct. Revision to 30 was wrong. 30 is what she gets working for Rochester at Thornfield.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Link removed
I removed the link " [ http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/book.jsp?id=97 Complete Audiobook] MP3 - Public Domain" because it was flagged as possible malware by google. The site has possible traces of "bin.clearspring.com" which hosts malware. This was just a precaution, if anyone proves this was a false positive or if there is no danger then restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.201.104.229 (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment as Top importance
The article doesn't cite any references on the literary significance of the novel to justify a Top importance assessment.--Sum (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Too many images
There are too many images in the plot section. Plus, they are placed in the center instead of being nicely balanced on each side. It makes the plot look even longer than it already is, especially Chapters 27-35. I don't think we can justify have 6 images for that one section. Perhaps one image per section placed on alternating sides of the text? Roseclearfield (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Is that easier to read? Again, the rationale for removal of pictures is that:


 * 1) It's difficult to read with the gallery-style image layout breaking up the text.
 * 2) Some of the images do not even connect to what is written in the plot summary (i.e. Rochester disguised as a gypsy).
 * 3) An editor added that the plot summary is overly long/detailed. Pictures makes it seem even longer.
 * 4) These images do not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the work. If the images were, for instance, from different artists or early editions or done by Brontë herself, perhaps they would merit inclusion, but in some other forum. Is there a list of images from Jane Eyre that someone would want to create?


 * Here are the removed images:


 * Roseclearfield (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, messed up the IPA of the name Eyre
I wanted to change the IPA to the British pronunciation, i.e. without an R sound at the end, on the grounds that Jane Eyre is a British character in a British book, but it went wrong and I don't know how to fix it. APW (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I also tried to change this but messed it up. It should be 'ɛː' as in the standard English pronunciation of "hair". Not a diphthong and definitely not rhotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.33.168 (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to help, since my variety is rhotic, with the Mary–marry–merry merger. I suggest reading WP:IPAE. An important point to keep in mind is that you should leave the r on the end. That's the convention in WP's broad phonemic transcription. Ntsimp (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the drastic edit
I'm very sorry for the huge boneheaded mistake I made removing text from this article. I thought I was editing the version on my drawing board (in my userspace)! Many thanks to for quickly reverting my idiocy. Scartol •  Tok  17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

error in fact
I changed "oak" to "chestnut". It was a chestnut tree that was struck by lightning. 4.249.63.48 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

radio versions
The 1943 film is supposedly based on a script written for Orson Welles' Mercury Theater radio program. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wycoller Hall
I've revised the language of the Wycoller Hall para with the aim of paring down its speculative feel and removing weasel expressions. A more scholarly source than ww.friendsofwycoller.co.uk is needed however. asnac (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember that Jane Eyre was also mentioned in the novel, Beastly, by young adult author, Alex Flinn. Jane Eyre is one of the main character's, Lindy (Linda) Owens' favorite book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.146.139 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

David Hackett Fischer
I propose removing the entire third paragraph. It would appear to be largely irrelevant to the subject being, mostly, a discussion of Fischer's theory and not about the novel and as such does not belong in such a prominent position. There are multiple contentious issues with the paragraph as it stands - the evocation of the North Midlands is disputable, the undue weight given to the description "Quaker-like", the idea that the Norman Conquest was based on French Catholicism, the idea that either Brocklehurst or St. John Rivers were Calvinists and the mention of the drafting of The US Constitution.

The first sentence might be accommodated elsewhere - perhaps in the Influences section.

Panama1958 (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Puritan
In the section "Morality" and in the section "God and Religion" there are references to the Puritanism of Brocklehurst and St. John Rivers. I would suggest that this word is wrong for the time and place and, more importantly, for Church of England priests.

Brocklehurst is plainly a hypocrite but there is nothing in the text to suggest that he is a Puritan ( check out the Wikipedia entries on the history and beliefs of Puritanism). I intend, unless someone comes up with a better suggestion, removing the words "hypocritical puritanism" with hypocrisy.

St. John Rivers would appear, from the text, to be a Low Church Evangelical (see the Wikipedia entries on History of the Church of England) who is obsessive about what he sees as his duty, as a Christian, to spread his religion. Again there is nothing to suggest Puritanism which was, in any case, a philosophy from a different age. I would suggest replacing "Puritanism" with religious fervour - again, subject to a better idea.

Panama1958 (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Intro sounds like a book's inner copy
I think it should be well reworded. It doesn't sound impartial. what do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.38.143 (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Number of pages
recently added info to the infobox, stating that the novel's number of pages is 919. This was sourced to a description of a first edition at an auctioneer's website (here). However, a look at Wikisource shows the actual last page of the novel at p382 (here), and this to me seems more reasonable than 919, which is rather a lot (my single-volume copy of The Lord of the Rings only has 1069 pages). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's from a later edition published by W Nicholson & Sons. First edition by Smith, Elder & Co. was 919 pages in 3 volumes. Debbiesw (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Those Victorians used much bigger letters, than Hobbits, so no surprise they needed more pages. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but over twice as many? Could there be an error at the auctioneer's page? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As a quick example, this bargain (although doesn't say original binding?), gives " [xiii], 303; 304; 304;" which indeed totals 919. (Note: shipping from US is a mere £27.47 - a bargain!) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Reception
The Reception section of the article implies by its quote that the novel was not well received. I believe this requires further research and possibly correction.

I created an ngram of novels that were somewhat contemporary and found that whether it was positive or negative publicity, the book certainly had a significant amount written about it right from publication.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Jane+Eyre%2CWuthering+Heights%2CFrankenstein%2CA+Tale+of+Two+Cities%2CThe+Picture+of+Dorian+Gray&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CJane%20Eyre%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CWuthering%20Heights%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CFrankenstein%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CA%20Tale%20of%20Two%20Cities%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CThe%20Picture%20of%20Dorian%20Gray%3B%2Cc0 Eltimbalino (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Reception - Use the paragraphs from Charlotte Bronte
The section on Jane Eyre in [Charlotte Brontë] is WAY better and more accurate than the section on "Reception" in this article. Is it legal to merely copy those paragraphs from the Charlotte Brontë article into this one?

I am specifically talking about this text:

Jane Eyre had immediate commercial success and initially received favourable reviews. G. H. Lewes wrote that it was "an utterance from the depths of a struggling, suffering, much-enduring spirit," and declared that it consisted of "suspiria de profundis!" (sighs from the depths).[16] Speculation about the identity and gender of the mysterious Currer Bell heightened with the publication of Wuthering Heights by Ellis Bell (Emily) and Agnes Grey by Acton Bell (Anne).[17] Accompanying the speculation was a change in the critical reaction to Brontë's work, as accusations were made that the writing was "coarse",[18] a judgement more readily made once it was suspected that Currer Bell was a woman.[19] However, sales of Jane Eyre continued to be strong and may even have increased as a result of the novel developing a reputation as an "improper" book.[20] A talented amateur artist, Brontë personally did the drawings for the second edition of Jane Eyre and in the summer of 1834 two of her paintings were shown at an exhibition by the Royal Northern Society for the Encouragement of the Fine Arts in Leeds.[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.153.224.167 (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Eyre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614055811/http://www.friendsofwycoller.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Wycoller-The-Bronte-Connection.pdf to http://www.friendsofwycoller.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Wycoller-The-Bronte-Connection.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete
I have tagged this article as incomplete, because there is no discussion themes, or of the Byronic hero and the gothic dimension, and the "Reception" section is inadequate. It is sad to find such a poor article on a major novel. Rwood128 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem I see begins with the lead section, besides being poorly written and ugly to read, it doesn't have any correlation at all with the main body of the article. "Jane Eyre revolutionised the art of fiction", led to the writings of Proust and Joyce, influenced sexuality, religion, feminism and so forth; none of these things are expounded upon at all in the article. Three quarters of the page is devoted to plot summary/characters. There is zilch about Jane Eyre's influence upon anyone or anything under the "Adaptations and influence" section. Very sad to see the page like this, it needs serious renovation. Michael0986 (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Marmion & Dating
Note a. on this article states "The exact time setting of the novel is impossible to determine, as several references in the text are contradictory. For example, Marmion (pub. 1808) is referred to in Chapter 32 as a "new publication", but Adèle mentions crossing the Channel by steamship, impossible before 1816." A comment on the talk page for Wide Sargasso Sea notes that "Jane Eyre is not set in 1810 - she receives a copy of Marmion which was not available in a fairly-priced version until the release of the 1825 folio." - so perhaps Marmion being a "new publication" is referring to that 1825 date? That said, it's also perfectly possible that Charlotte Bronte wasn't that fussed about making the setting realistic :) Dichohecho (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This is correct, the novel is not referring to the first edition of Marmion of 1808, but one of the later editions. That is supported by Brönte calling it a new publication, instead of a new poem. She was hedging her bets.

Adele crosses the Channel on a steamboat that is clearly part of a ferry service, not some sort of experimental ship. The very first steam crossing of the Channel was in 1816 (see Steamboat Elise), and it took another decade before there was a regular service. These early steam crossings were widely publicized, and an educated person like Brönte getting it wrong would be almost as absurd as getting the dates of the moon landing wrong.

In addition, when Jane arrives in Thornwood, Paris is already lighted by gas - Rochester catches Ceciles lover by gaslight, but the first gas lamps of Paris were placed in the Place du Carrousel in 1829. All of this points to a date in the 1830's, and this fits nicely with the publication date of the Magnum Opus edition of Marmion from 1834, the first affordable version. See also John Sutherland's “Can Jane Eyre be happy?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A213:A901:2680:D53F:AD2A:A291:F149 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Add Link
Can we add a link to the Standard Ebooks edition of Jane Eyre? I consider Standard Ebooks to be an important project in literature, and not just merely a website where one can get an ebook. The project makes public domain ebooks more suitable for modern e-readers. In addition, they use public domain artwork for their covers. The project is a free, open-source effort and its values and goals are a noble contribution to humanity. This is the link that I suggest: Deldred (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jane Eyre at Standard Ebooks

There's been no opposition to this, so I'm going to go ahead and do it. I'm updating the links to remove some superseded by SE, as their versions don't seem to be as good. Smith (talk)  16:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Colonial Context section
Get rid? It's unimportant; what it does say could easily condense into a paragraph in Context (I suggest it shouldn't). TheScarletPeacock (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to add connection to other article
Hi, I've been working on editing the Gothic double article for the past few months. It is still classified as a stub so I'm looking to divert some more traffic to the article in order for its classification to go up. I have a section on how the motif is used in Jane Eyre (with Bertha symbolising Jane's alter ego), and was wondering if I could please add a sentence or two in this article mentioning the use of the motif, and with a hyperlink to my own article? Please let me know. Thank you so much! Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intertextuality
— Assignment last updated by Gcampbel (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding to article for Wiki Education assignment
Hi, everyone! I wanted leave a brief message to talk about what I plan to add to the Jane Eyre page for my Wiki Education assignment. I noticed that the Genre and Theme sections lack in content and depth. I would like to expand on these topics so readers get a more encompassing understanding about Jane Eyre. That being said, I plan to add a Bildungsroman genre and Gothic genre. For the themes, I plan to add a Social Class theme and Religion theme. A lot of these additions are based on other people's thoughts on the Talk page, and I hope you will see that these areas could be improved upon. Mbjones00 (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)