Jane Eyre, while widely regarded as being an iconic feminist novel, is nothing groundbreaking. The protagonist, Jane, is a very dull one to follow, especially given the extremely slow pace of the book. Rochester, her love interest, is abundantly older than her and extremely manipulative. Bronte takes an abundance of time embellishing her text with description--while it is pretty prose, it amounts to little more than that. My main issue with the book, however, is the blatant way

Bertha Mason, one of the characters, is handled. She is written off as unfeminine, insane, and disgusting, and is frequently juxtaposed to Jane. It seems as though Bertha's exclusive purpose within the story was to be a plot device: her agency is only relevant when it comes to developing Jane and Rochester's toxic romance. If Bronte wanted to write a trendsetting feminist novel, she should have done so by not weaponizing lack of femininity and mental illness as a means of degrading any woman close to Rochester other than her beloved protagonist. Bertha was his lawful wife, but Rochester decided she was 'too Black' and 'too unfeminine,' to be around, so he locked her in his attic and was confused when she began acting genuinely erratic and hostile. Bronte portrays her repeatedly as a monster rather than as a person. It was painfully obvious reading that book that those who hail it as iconic and inclusive refuse to acknowledge the flaws in the "happy ending." As a segway into that, Jane is seen to have no flaws throughout the book, other than her lack of ability to exit a toxic relationship, which isn't at all portrayed as a flaw in the text. On the contrary, Bronte treats Jane's return to Rochester as a 'deeply sympathetic act.' This only further promotes the widespread mentality of the time that women must give up and devote their lives to men 'out of the kindness of their hearts,' regardless of how much abuse they endured. He tried to trick her into committing bigotry when she did not consent. He held his past suicidal thoughts over her head to justify how he locked Bertha in his attic for decades (and our 'feminist' protagonist took no issue with the notion of locking 'unfeminine' women in attics). He threatened Jane. He intentionally flirted with other women just to make her jealous. And yet she still went back to him. Why? 'Because of true love?' That is not feminist by any stretch, it's just a bad romance novel. Jane also is never seen struggling to cope with her trauma or lashing out, because 'God forbid an accurate portrayal of mental illness, or just God forbid a woman being mentally ill. God forbid having a protagonist like Bertha.' The "happy ending" is a mary sue protagonist being put on a mantle with a horrible husband, and it sure as hell isn't happy for Bertha, who commits suicide towards the end of the book. And look, maybe Jane didn't know that Bertha was dead when she went back to Rochester, since the suicide happened beforehand. But Charlotte Bronte sure as hell did. She made the conscious choice to have Jane and Rochester be wed immediately after Bertha Mason kills herself. It leaves an incredibly bitter taste in my mouth to know that the female character most fucked over by the patriarchy, Bertha, was only treated as an obstacle so the male and female lead's relationship wouldn't be 'too easy.' I listened to someone suggest once that she 'killed herself so Jane and Rochester could be together' and wanted to vomit.

And you know what, maybe I'm just a random person on the internet that very passionately hates the way this book is received, but a spin-off book called "Wide Sargasso Sea" was written many years later by an entirely different author. It handles many of the topics I just addressed and

is unafraid to portray Rochester's manipulative, controlling disposition from a lens that isn't rose-tinted. Bertha Mason is the main character, and it's the (different) author's take on how she came to marry Rochester, be abused by him, and go insane.

I would highly recommend reading it.

All in all, I found this a highly boring and uninteresting read. Once again, the prose itself was gorgeous, but that's all I can say in its favor. I wouldn't hate this book so much if it weren't for the reputation and reception it tends to have. I had to read this for a feminist literature curriculum and was embarrassed by how terrible the feminist themes were executed. It made me sick to read what felt more like a blatant attack on feminism. Yes, it was original for its time, but that's where it ends. Stop teaching that this book is the pinnacle of feminist literature, old or new.

Teach about the history behind neurodivergent, 'unfeminine,' 'unruly,' and colored women (people in general, but especially women) being shoved into asylums that equated to torture facilities because they didn't fit the mold.

Teach about the way people with genuine mental illness were treated and still are treated. 

3/5 from me exclusively on the basis of significance and prose.