For the past six months, I spent a lot of time reading and studying Jane Eyre. With being busy and reading other books at the same time, this study got drawn out a lot longer than I would have liked it to, but it was a rewarding six months. I have shared some of my thoughts on the book on this blog previously, and by clicking the Jane Eyre tag at the bottom of the article, you can see all the other ones.
While reading, I worked through some of my own thoughts on whether a child's behaviour is justified by her authority's actions, the effectiveness of discipline, love being blind and pondering through some of my favourite conversations and quotes. I think some of my ideas have changed somewhat by now. At the end, I worked through two sets of discussion questions related to the plot, characters, issues of feminism, self-respect, social status, Christian morality, salvation, love and marriage.
One of the biggest challenges at the end was determining Jane's philosophy of God. Then I had to determine the philosophy of love and marriage for several main characters as well as develop my own. If any of my readers express a curiosity in it, I might share it in a later post. I also discussed the importance of marriage, the rules that govern it, and how it impacts society among many other issues.
Literature has so much to offer us. Having studied one book on my own with a little help, I have determined that the study of the classics is worth it. Yes, I had to think hard, and there's times I just wanted to skip over things. But I think we learn best when we are inspired to learn, when we choose to think and answer those tough questions, rather than when we are forced to.
So pick up a classic and be inspired to learn and I'll enjoy Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility.
Showing posts with label Jane Eyre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jane Eyre. Show all posts
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Sunday, 3 July 2011
Jane Eyre: Turning the Bent of Nature
"It is hard work to control the working of inclination, and turn the bent of nature: but that it may be done, I know from experience. God has given us, in a measure, the power to make our own fate; and when out energies seem to demand a sustenance they cannot get--when our will strains after a path we may not follow--we need neither starve from inanition, nor stand still in despair: we have but to seek another nourishment for the mind, as strong as the forbidden food it longed to taste--and perhaps purer; and to hew out for the adventurous foot a road as direct and broad as the one Fortune has blocked up against us, if rougher than it." --St. John Rivers, Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
Sunday, 15 May 2011
For Such Moments as This
"I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad--as I am now. Laws and principles are not for times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth? They have a worth--so I have always believed; and if I cannot believe it now, it is because I am insane--quite insane: with my veins running fire, and my heart beating faster than I can count its throbs. Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations, are all I have at this hour to stand by: there I plant my foot." --Jane Eyre (emphasis mine)
Monday, 9 May 2011
Jane Eyre: Is Love Blind?
Love is blind. It' a common phrase. Is it true?
I did a little research on the phrase and found that it was first coined by Shakespeare. He used it in a few of his plays. The idea is that when a person falls in love, they become blind to the other person's faults. Emotions take over and they fail to see clearly. A research study has actually proven this to be true. The activity in areas of the brain that control critical thought are actually suppressed by love.
Some people think that before you get married, you should keep both eyes wide open and when you marry, keep one eye shut. That might not be such a bad idea.
This is one of the latest issues I've been thinking about in my study of Jane Eyre. When Jane first comes to Thornfield, she definitely takes notice of Rochester's faults, which in my opinion are many. He's honest with her that he has a past he regrets, although he normally doesn't explain them. And on top of that, Jane doesn't find him particularly attractive.
However, as the story progresses, her interest in the man, 20 years older than herself, grows. Interest turns to affection, and affection turns to love. By this time, she completely overlooks any of the faults she previously saw in him. Criticism has fled and love wins. Even when faced with the competition of another woman, Jane doesn't let it faze her. She's more in love with the man than ever. She's consumed by this and quickly begins to idolize the man.
The problem with Rochester is that he's a mysterious man and has a tendency to be deceptive. The reader can see the problem easily, but Jane is blinded to it. She disregards any questionable actions, motives or intentions. When Rochester proposes, she questions how long his love for her will last. He makes it clear that once they're married, she will be all his, attached to him like his watch and chain. He's going to control her. His flowery words and affection often quickly turn to rudeness. This still doesn't bother Jane. She seems to prefer insults to affection. It's almost as if she doesn't want to be or doesn't think she deserves to be properly loved.
Will her eyes be opened before she gets burned? You'll have to read the book for yourself to find out.
I did a little research on the phrase and found that it was first coined by Shakespeare. He used it in a few of his plays. The idea is that when a person falls in love, they become blind to the other person's faults. Emotions take over and they fail to see clearly. A research study has actually proven this to be true. The activity in areas of the brain that control critical thought are actually suppressed by love.
Some people think that before you get married, you should keep both eyes wide open and when you marry, keep one eye shut. That might not be such a bad idea.
This is one of the latest issues I've been thinking about in my study of Jane Eyre. When Jane first comes to Thornfield, she definitely takes notice of Rochester's faults, which in my opinion are many. He's honest with her that he has a past he regrets, although he normally doesn't explain them. And on top of that, Jane doesn't find him particularly attractive.
However, as the story progresses, her interest in the man, 20 years older than herself, grows. Interest turns to affection, and affection turns to love. By this time, she completely overlooks any of the faults she previously saw in him. Criticism has fled and love wins. Even when faced with the competition of another woman, Jane doesn't let it faze her. She's more in love with the man than ever. She's consumed by this and quickly begins to idolize the man.
The problem with Rochester is that he's a mysterious man and has a tendency to be deceptive. The reader can see the problem easily, but Jane is blinded to it. She disregards any questionable actions, motives or intentions. When Rochester proposes, she questions how long his love for her will last. He makes it clear that once they're married, she will be all his, attached to him like his watch and chain. He's going to control her. His flowery words and affection often quickly turn to rudeness. This still doesn't bother Jane. She seems to prefer insults to affection. It's almost as if she doesn't want to be or doesn't think she deserves to be properly loved.
Will her eyes be opened before she gets burned? You'll have to read the book for yourself to find out.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
An Involuntary Confidant
"Know, that in the course of your future life you will often find yourself elected the involuntary confidant of your acquaintances' secrets: people will instinctively find out, as I have done, that it is not your forte to talk of yourself, but to listen while others talk about themselves; they will feel, too, that you listen with no malevolent scorn of their indiscretion but with a kind of innate sympathy; not the less comforting and encouraging because it is very unobtrusive in its manifestations." --Jane Eyre
Mr. Rochester says this to Jane in a conversation shortly after meeting. I loved this chapter. I learned so much about both characters and there's a lot of things to think about!
Mr. Rochester says this to Jane in a conversation shortly after meeting. I loved this chapter. I learned so much about both characters and there's a lot of things to think about!
Monday, 18 April 2011
Jane Eyre: Discipline
I have now finally completed Volume 1 of Jane Eyre. This post will focus around Chapter 6, and I would encourage you to read it if you have the book. It contains one of my favourite and most thought-provoking conversations of the book so far. It's also an important continuation of my last post on authority.
In this chapter, we learn a bit more of Jane first friend she makes at Lowood, the school she's been sent to. Her name is Helen Burns, probably about four years older than Jane (making her 14) and her character is very different from Jane's. Whereas Jane is proud, bitter and resists authority, Helen is humble, willfully acknowledges her faults and submits herself authority and discipline.
Discipline is largely the issue discussed in this chapter. Early on, Helen is flogged with a bunch of twigs for her behaviour that her teacher, Miss Scatcherd dislikes. Jane believes that Helen should never submit herself to such harsh treatment. She believes it's cruel and would resist it. Helen disagrees. She believes the teacher is simply severe and dislikes her faults.
Helen says "it is weak and silly to say you cannot bear what it is your fate to be required to bear." Of course, Jane really has to wonder at her response and endurance and although she disagrees with her stance, she thinks the girl may be right. "Still I felt that Helen Burns considered things by a light invisible to my eyes. I suspected she might be right and I wrong; but I would not ponder the matter deeply: like Felix, I put it off to a more convenient season."
Although Helen is honest about her own faults, she will not say anything negative about Miss Scatcherd. She takes responsibility for her own actions. The discussion turns to another teacher, Miss Temple, who is loving, gently tells Helen her faults and showers her with praise. Although Jane thinks this approach is better, Helen says that it's not effective. It doesn't cure her faults and even her praise doesn't motivate her to be good. Although Jane thinks Helen is good with Miss Temple, she says she's good in a passive way. She makes no effort and doesn't believe there to be any merit in such goodness.
This comparison of discipline methods reminded me of parents and God. I'm not going to determine what kind of discipline is right or wrong here. I'm not the person to do that but I will say that discipline can easily turn to abuse, and I have a massive problem with that.
You see in this conversation a harsh method that uses the rod, and a gentle one that uses only a gentle tongue. In this story, it seems that the rod is definitely the more effective method, as the character admits. Although love and gentleness are good, they didn't produce the same results. They may have on the outside, but it didn't come from the heart.
When I read the Bible, I see these two sides of God. I see the one that chastens, pours out His wrath and drives merchants out of the temple with a whip. I also see the one that cares for His creation, loves, gives His Son's life for His children, and gathers little children into His arms. Parents can be the same way. A lot of parents emphasize one over the other. They discipline harshly or are all love and leniency. Both can result in problems and rebellion.
Also, Christians often over-emphasize one attribute of God. They preach a God of wrath who stands by to punish all who sin and cast them into hell, or on the flip-side, they preach a God who's all love and mercy so you can do whatever you want and He'll forgive you, always standing ready with big open arms. Both sides, when overdone, result in bad theology.
The conversation in the book continues and Jane maintains that when we are wronged, we must strike back or wicked people will always have their way. She believes they must be stopped by force and it's all as natural as loving someone who loves you. Helen however explains how Jesus taught us in the New Testament to love our enemies and bless those who curse us. She encourages Jane to read it and make Christ her example.
This is a new idea to Jane, as she's always been threatened with hell for her wrong deeds. Of course she believes it's impossible. Helen wonders at how Jane can describe Mrs. Reed's mistreatment with the finest details and tells Jane that she harbours no such feelings. "Life appears to me too short to be spent in nursing animosity, or registering wrongs." I might also add that few children will respond as Helen does. Not many will tolerate such harsh treatment. Helen continues in speaking of great things about Eternity and forgiveness that even I have a hard time understanding and the discussion ends there.
I think this post balances off my last one a little. I've also realized that by the end of the book, my initial ideas and opinions may change. As the plot develops, characters grow and change, as we see Jane beginning to in this chapter with the help of a friend. Up until this point, the book was a little dreary and depressing, even if very engaging. By the end of this chapter, my heart felt refreshed!
In this chapter, we learn a bit more of Jane first friend she makes at Lowood, the school she's been sent to. Her name is Helen Burns, probably about four years older than Jane (making her 14) and her character is very different from Jane's. Whereas Jane is proud, bitter and resists authority, Helen is humble, willfully acknowledges her faults and submits herself authority and discipline.
Discipline is largely the issue discussed in this chapter. Early on, Helen is flogged with a bunch of twigs for her behaviour that her teacher, Miss Scatcherd dislikes. Jane believes that Helen should never submit herself to such harsh treatment. She believes it's cruel and would resist it. Helen disagrees. She believes the teacher is simply severe and dislikes her faults.
Helen says "it is weak and silly to say you cannot bear what it is your fate to be required to bear." Of course, Jane really has to wonder at her response and endurance and although she disagrees with her stance, she thinks the girl may be right. "Still I felt that Helen Burns considered things by a light invisible to my eyes. I suspected she might be right and I wrong; but I would not ponder the matter deeply: like Felix, I put it off to a more convenient season."
Although Helen is honest about her own faults, she will not say anything negative about Miss Scatcherd. She takes responsibility for her own actions. The discussion turns to another teacher, Miss Temple, who is loving, gently tells Helen her faults and showers her with praise. Although Jane thinks this approach is better, Helen says that it's not effective. It doesn't cure her faults and even her praise doesn't motivate her to be good. Although Jane thinks Helen is good with Miss Temple, she says she's good in a passive way. She makes no effort and doesn't believe there to be any merit in such goodness.
This comparison of discipline methods reminded me of parents and God. I'm not going to determine what kind of discipline is right or wrong here. I'm not the person to do that but I will say that discipline can easily turn to abuse, and I have a massive problem with that.
You see in this conversation a harsh method that uses the rod, and a gentle one that uses only a gentle tongue. In this story, it seems that the rod is definitely the more effective method, as the character admits. Although love and gentleness are good, they didn't produce the same results. They may have on the outside, but it didn't come from the heart.
When I read the Bible, I see these two sides of God. I see the one that chastens, pours out His wrath and drives merchants out of the temple with a whip. I also see the one that cares for His creation, loves, gives His Son's life for His children, and gathers little children into His arms. Parents can be the same way. A lot of parents emphasize one over the other. They discipline harshly or are all love and leniency. Both can result in problems and rebellion.
Also, Christians often over-emphasize one attribute of God. They preach a God of wrath who stands by to punish all who sin and cast them into hell, or on the flip-side, they preach a God who's all love and mercy so you can do whatever you want and He'll forgive you, always standing ready with big open arms. Both sides, when overdone, result in bad theology.
The conversation in the book continues and Jane maintains that when we are wronged, we must strike back or wicked people will always have their way. She believes they must be stopped by force and it's all as natural as loving someone who loves you. Helen however explains how Jesus taught us in the New Testament to love our enemies and bless those who curse us. She encourages Jane to read it and make Christ her example.
This is a new idea to Jane, as she's always been threatened with hell for her wrong deeds. Of course she believes it's impossible. Helen wonders at how Jane can describe Mrs. Reed's mistreatment with the finest details and tells Jane that she harbours no such feelings. "Life appears to me too short to be spent in nursing animosity, or registering wrongs." I might also add that few children will respond as Helen does. Not many will tolerate such harsh treatment. Helen continues in speaking of great things about Eternity and forgiveness that even I have a hard time understanding and the discussion ends there.
I think this post balances off my last one a little. I've also realized that by the end of the book, my initial ideas and opinions may change. As the plot develops, characters grow and change, as we see Jane beginning to in this chapter with the help of a friend. Up until this point, the book was a little dreary and depressing, even if very engaging. By the end of this chapter, my heart felt refreshed!
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Jane Eyre: Justified?
Can a child's behaviour be justified by her authority's actions?
Jane Eyre is the story of a woman named Jane Eyre, as the title suggests. The first nine chapters of the book recount her childhood, beginning when she is 10 years old. Orphaned and living with her aunt, she is repeatedly pushed aside, verbally and sometimes physically abused by her aunt and cousins and regarded as less than a servant. She's often locked in a room by herself for long periods of time. By the time she's sent away to school, she has become bitter and resentful towards authority.
Jane expresses her misery early on in the book. "Why was I always suffering, always brow-beaten, always accused, for ever condemned? Why could I never please? Why was it useless to try to win anyone's favour?" On one occasion, she gathers up enough courage to confront her aunt and angrily expresses her feelings. After the argument, she feels triumphant, but the feeling quickly fades into deep remorse.
It's sad when a child, because of mistreatment, has grown so angry and resentful. Jane has come to believe that she must resist authority and instill fear in them. The question is this: is she justified? Is her behaviour justified by her authority's actions.
Now, before anything else is said, I must say that the way the book is written, we are made to pity Jane right from chapter one. As she recounts her experiences and mistreatment, we regard her more and more as a victim. The story stirs the reader emotionally, tugs at their heart, as they compare her life with their own personal experiences. To suggest that she's in the wrong doesn't seem fair and we quickly try to justify her attitude and behaviour. Naturally, we sympathize with the character and thus will respond to the situation with more tenderness.
The Bible is pretty clear on this. Although Jane is in the care of a benefactress, I think the words apply just the same.
Ephesians 6:1-3 (ESV)
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with promise), "that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land."
Christians love to preach this and it would all be good and well if every child lived in a loving Christian home (which they don't). Some, however, conveniently overlook the next verse that says "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (ESV) Also, Colossians 3:21 says "Father, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged" (KJV)
I looked up that last word "anger" in the Greek (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance) and found some strong words: "violent passion, (ire or [justifiable] abhorrence); by implication punishment:-- anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath."
We live in a society where child and teenage rebellion is prevalent and we're quick to blame the kids. But who's problem or fault is it really? In many cases, if you were to look beyond the child, you would find a dysfunctional home, void of proper love, care and instruction.
This is largely the case in Jane's situation. She isn't loved or made a part of the family. She's verbally abused, pushed aside, tormented by her cousins, etc. She's scolded when she does something wrong and harassed with the threat of hell for her deeds. It seems to me she's always being reprimanded for what she does wrong but nobody ever takes the time to teach her proper behaviour. Can she really be blamed for her misdeeds?
You can't vigorously shake a bottle of pop, often the cap and expect nothing to happen. The same goes for a child. If they are constantly mistreated and never loved, at some point they're going to react. All their feelings are eventually going to boil over and it's not going to be peachy when they do. Ultimately, it's the responsibility of the parent/guardian to demonstrate love and provide instruction to the children entrusted to their care. If they fail to that, bitterness and rebellion will ensue.
So is Jane justified? Perhaps. I'm not here to draw solid conclusions. No, her response isn't right, but it's what will naturally occur in her situation. The authority has the ultimate responsibility, and in this case, her aunt wasn't fulfilling hers. Jane's conscience convicted her so she knew what she did was wrong and I suppose this would make her responsible for her actions. She learned from venting her emotions that had been building for years. It was the only thing she knew to do. Also, people have been trying to blame their sins on others since the Garden of Eden, and God doesn't buy it.
Having considered some different sides I'm not sure if I can confidently say Yes or No, but here's my conclusion of the matter. Let's just stop blaming the kids all the time!
Jane Eyre is the story of a woman named Jane Eyre, as the title suggests. The first nine chapters of the book recount her childhood, beginning when she is 10 years old. Orphaned and living with her aunt, she is repeatedly pushed aside, verbally and sometimes physically abused by her aunt and cousins and regarded as less than a servant. She's often locked in a room by herself for long periods of time. By the time she's sent away to school, she has become bitter and resentful towards authority.
Jane expresses her misery early on in the book. "Why was I always suffering, always brow-beaten, always accused, for ever condemned? Why could I never please? Why was it useless to try to win anyone's favour?" On one occasion, she gathers up enough courage to confront her aunt and angrily expresses her feelings. After the argument, she feels triumphant, but the feeling quickly fades into deep remorse.
It's sad when a child, because of mistreatment, has grown so angry and resentful. Jane has come to believe that she must resist authority and instill fear in them. The question is this: is she justified? Is her behaviour justified by her authority's actions.
Now, before anything else is said, I must say that the way the book is written, we are made to pity Jane right from chapter one. As she recounts her experiences and mistreatment, we regard her more and more as a victim. The story stirs the reader emotionally, tugs at their heart, as they compare her life with their own personal experiences. To suggest that she's in the wrong doesn't seem fair and we quickly try to justify her attitude and behaviour. Naturally, we sympathize with the character and thus will respond to the situation with more tenderness.
The Bible is pretty clear on this. Although Jane is in the care of a benefactress, I think the words apply just the same.
Ephesians 6:1-3 (ESV)
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with promise), "that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land."
Christians love to preach this and it would all be good and well if every child lived in a loving Christian home (which they don't). Some, however, conveniently overlook the next verse that says "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (ESV) Also, Colossians 3:21 says "Father, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged" (KJV)
I looked up that last word "anger" in the Greek (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance) and found some strong words: "violent passion, (ire or [justifiable] abhorrence); by implication punishment:-- anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath."
We live in a society where child and teenage rebellion is prevalent and we're quick to blame the kids. But who's problem or fault is it really? In many cases, if you were to look beyond the child, you would find a dysfunctional home, void of proper love, care and instruction.
This is largely the case in Jane's situation. She isn't loved or made a part of the family. She's verbally abused, pushed aside, tormented by her cousins, etc. She's scolded when she does something wrong and harassed with the threat of hell for her deeds. It seems to me she's always being reprimanded for what she does wrong but nobody ever takes the time to teach her proper behaviour. Can she really be blamed for her misdeeds?
You can't vigorously shake a bottle of pop, often the cap and expect nothing to happen. The same goes for a child. If they are constantly mistreated and never loved, at some point they're going to react. All their feelings are eventually going to boil over and it's not going to be peachy when they do. Ultimately, it's the responsibility of the parent/guardian to demonstrate love and provide instruction to the children entrusted to their care. If they fail to that, bitterness and rebellion will ensue.
So is Jane justified? Perhaps. I'm not here to draw solid conclusions. No, her response isn't right, but it's what will naturally occur in her situation. The authority has the ultimate responsibility, and in this case, her aunt wasn't fulfilling hers. Jane's conscience convicted her so she knew what she did was wrong and I suppose this would make her responsible for her actions. She learned from venting her emotions that had been building for years. It was the only thing she knew to do. Also, people have been trying to blame their sins on others since the Garden of Eden, and God doesn't buy it.
Having considered some different sides I'm not sure if I can confidently say Yes or No, but here's my conclusion of the matter. Let's just stop blaming the kids all the time!
Thursday, 7 April 2011
Jane Eyre: Introduction
Today I'm introducing a new series I'll be writing for the next few weeks. I'm not sure how many posts it will be, how often I will share on it, and how many other posts will be placed in between. I did however want to start off with this post to just introduce it and let you know where I'm coming from.
About a year and a half ago when I was almost finished school, I read A Thomas Jefferson Education by Oliver DeMille, which I would recommend to students and parents alike. It's an awesome book authored by the founder of George Wythe University and it's all about teaching a new generation of leaders. It's faith based, compares public, home and private education, and focuses on teaching children through mentoring and the classics. It's about teaching children not what to think, but how to think. This is the book that inspired me to read and study classics.
Right now, I'm studying Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. It's going much slower than I had hoped with all the different things I have going on right now, and I'm not quite half through, but it has already made me think deeply about so many different things. This series will be a discussion of my thoughts. I don't know how it will go or what kind of feedback I will get, but I want to encourage you to study and to think.
I'm also planning on approaching this in a way that may be unpopular and I want to explain why that is. Although the first few topics I will be discussing are faith-based, I don't want to look at them from a strictly Christian/Biblical perspective, although I will do that. I want to consider human reasoning as well. I want to consider matters from different perspectives. Why is this?
I think very often as Christians, when asked what we believe about something start off with something like "Well, the Bible says. . . ." I'm not necessarily saying this approach is wrong, but sometimes what the Bible says is not actually what we believe, or want to believe. We may believe that what the Bible says is right and true, but we don't necessarily like it. We wish it were different. We are humans and by nature we don't always agree with or want what is right and true, although we should. Also, when you enter into discussions with unbelievers, "The Bible says. . ." isn't going to cut it because they don't believe in it. You have to convince them of your reasoning otherwise.
As I've been thinking through the issues of Jane Eyre, I have been reminded what God's Word has to say about things. But in my heart, I want it to be different. I want to believe that a child's bitterness and resentment is justified by her pain and unfair treatment. And in some ways, I believe I can look at scripture and rightly do that. In some ways I can't.
I haven't embarked on this study to believe, think, or feel all the right things. I have embarked on this journey to learn how to think, to form my own opinions and ideas, to look at life from a different perspective, and perhaps to draw some conclusions, although I don't think I will reach many.
I invite you to join in the discussion, or to begin your own journey into the classics. What I will be sharing on here will likely be general discussions that people can understand without having read the book. I'll avoid giving away major plot details, especially later on, although I have no idea how far I'll go. Also, I haven't watched the new movie or trailer. I want to read and appreciate the book for what it is first. If you join the discussion, please don't give away any details.
About a year and a half ago when I was almost finished school, I read A Thomas Jefferson Education by Oliver DeMille, which I would recommend to students and parents alike. It's an awesome book authored by the founder of George Wythe University and it's all about teaching a new generation of leaders. It's faith based, compares public, home and private education, and focuses on teaching children through mentoring and the classics. It's about teaching children not what to think, but how to think. This is the book that inspired me to read and study classics.
Right now, I'm studying Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. It's going much slower than I had hoped with all the different things I have going on right now, and I'm not quite half through, but it has already made me think deeply about so many different things. This series will be a discussion of my thoughts. I don't know how it will go or what kind of feedback I will get, but I want to encourage you to study and to think.
I'm also planning on approaching this in a way that may be unpopular and I want to explain why that is. Although the first few topics I will be discussing are faith-based, I don't want to look at them from a strictly Christian/Biblical perspective, although I will do that. I want to consider human reasoning as well. I want to consider matters from different perspectives. Why is this?
I think very often as Christians, when asked what we believe about something start off with something like "Well, the Bible says. . . ." I'm not necessarily saying this approach is wrong, but sometimes what the Bible says is not actually what we believe, or want to believe. We may believe that what the Bible says is right and true, but we don't necessarily like it. We wish it were different. We are humans and by nature we don't always agree with or want what is right and true, although we should. Also, when you enter into discussions with unbelievers, "The Bible says. . ." isn't going to cut it because they don't believe in it. You have to convince them of your reasoning otherwise.
As I've been thinking through the issues of Jane Eyre, I have been reminded what God's Word has to say about things. But in my heart, I want it to be different. I want to believe that a child's bitterness and resentment is justified by her pain and unfair treatment. And in some ways, I believe I can look at scripture and rightly do that. In some ways I can't.
I haven't embarked on this study to believe, think, or feel all the right things. I have embarked on this journey to learn how to think, to form my own opinions and ideas, to look at life from a different perspective, and perhaps to draw some conclusions, although I don't think I will reach many.
I invite you to join in the discussion, or to begin your own journey into the classics. What I will be sharing on here will likely be general discussions that people can understand without having read the book. I'll avoid giving away major plot details, especially later on, although I have no idea how far I'll go. Also, I haven't watched the new movie or trailer. I want to read and appreciate the book for what it is first. If you join the discussion, please don't give away any details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)