On another thread, we've begun a discussion of Jane Eyre, and the nature of the relationship between Jane and Helen Burns. I've always thought that it was obvious that they were lesbian lovers, but it turns out that this is not so apparent to everyone.
What do you think? Lesbian relationship or just school mates having an innocent time hugging and kissing and sleeping together?
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Um..Tante...I don't see how two, what is it? 8 year old girls could be lesbians...Seriously, I just cannot see it that way.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I never saw it as more than a girlhood friendship.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Female friends back then were very affectionate. Anne of Green Gables comes to mind. How many times did Anne and her friend walk holding hands and stuff and kiss each other farewell? I reckon they thought such things were romantic. Now what I wonder about are intimate friendships in the Victorian era and Boston marriages.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Plus, Jane falls hard for myvictoriansexfantasy--whoops, I mean Rochester, later, so she'd be bisexual if not straight. Essentially.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
And I agree with Ela and Syn.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
They're intimate friends- they're children!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
There's just not enough there for it to be anything more than a friendship, imo. Jane even hangs out with another girlfriend while Helen is ill, and while Jane misses her, it's not like she's pining for her every moment. Until the death-bed scene, I don't even recall detailed descriptions of them kissing.
Also, think about it, Helen's flawed, she's messy and careless, but she's also brave and faithful. Jane's all alone in the world, no-one loves her, she's by turns freezing and starving to death - of course in those circumstances a friend would be desperately important. At the end, Helen's miles from home, alone and dying - I don't think Jane would be much of a friend if she didn't kiss her and stay with her while she fell asleep for the last time. But I don't see it as sexual. At the very most, it's the sort of girl-crush where you might wish you could be more like that woman, but don't actually want to have sex with them. Also, even now, tween and teen girls tend to go around kissing and holding hands, having sleep overs etc., while being nothing more than friends.
It'd be a lot more interesting if they were lovers, but IMO, they weren't. Sorry.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: Plus, Jane falls hard for myvictoriansexfantasy--whoops, I mean Rochester, later, so she'd be bisexual if not straight. Essentially.
Rochester is your fantasy guy? I could never see what was so attractive about him. He has his tender moments with Jane, true, and he did the right thing in taking in poor orphaned Adele, but he is a guy with a lot of baggage, and easily cruel. His marriage proposal to Jane, where he is stringing her along, knowing full well that she thinks he and Blanche are an item, is just mean. I wouldn't want to spend MY happily-ever-after with a guy who enjoys playing head games with me. If only Jane got out more, she'd see that there are other, tastier fish in the sea. And not that creep of a cousin of her's either. Sure, after that nut Brocklehurst, Rochester seems the soul of kindness and understanding. But mainly in contrast. I just hope that he doesn't get sick of Jane, or she might land up locked in the attic with Grace Poole, too.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Rochester is the ultimate sensitive bastard fantasy guy. He's horrible to everyone, horrible to you sometimes, but you're the only one that gets to see him be sweet. And he's BAD, he's so bad, he's naughty . See also Heathcliff.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Ugh! Heathcliff! No THANK you!
Tante Shvester prefers nice guys.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
>>he is a guy with a lot of baggage, and easily cruel.
Yup. We were meant to be together!
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
So far I agree with Tante's judgment on literary guys - I prefer mine sane and emotionally mature. And Jane definitely should have waited until she knew more than two adult men before settling for Rochester.
As far as Jane and Helen go, I did actually pick up a bit of homoeroticism, but "lesbian" and "lover" are too strong of terms for the level of relationship I perceive. Just an adolescent girly-crush, IMO.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
I never got the lesbian vibe fron Jane. Maybe because I had read so many books where sisters were close and open affection between women was common; but I just saw it as love and acceptance, though not sexually based.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
even if someone does decide they are homosexual as an adult, i do not think it is possible to ascribe sexual orientation to children - many children have crushes on friends of both genders. i really abhor the whole sexualizing of children thing.
that said... i am very affectionate with my girlfriends and guyfriends both. i kiss several of my girlfriends, we often hold hands, hug, and occassionally sleep in the same bed. but that doesn't mean i want to have sex with them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Reread the Helen stuff this morning. Helen is fourteen; Jane is ten or maybe eleven. Mostly Helen talks about God and being good and forgiving. Jane spends one night in Helen's crib, which has been moved into Miss Temple room because Helen is dying of consumption. jane wants to say goodbye. Helen does die that night and Jane is found asleep basically snuggling. More later - I have to go to a meeting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My summary: Nothing sexual implied at all. Sleeping in the same bed, hugging, kissing and so forth are not remotely unusual for girlfriends, especially at this time. Also, Jane, at least, was a child. Helen is portrayed as saintly. Most of her conversations with Jane are along the lines of Jane asking why Helen doesn't get mad when people are cruel to her and Helen responding that Jesus would want her to be better. Nothing remotely sexual about it at all.
Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
I agree. they're just too young to be interested in these matters. And even if they weren't, let's remember that the times were different then, and I think showing your feelings by holding hands, kissing and such was much more popular among females, at least.
But the thread made me think of how we often think that some or uther couple of fictional friends might be gay: like, say, Frodo and Sam from the Lotr. Horrible thought! I think making them gay would not only be obscene, but also spoil that what was vital in their relationship and in the story: their friendship. It's easy to describe lovers who suffer such things for each other, but imho if it's 'just' friendship, than the relationship is much more deep and moving. It's not all about sex.
Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
kmbboots, sorry, just noticed I repeated almost word by word what you said...
As for Rochester: ok, I like him too, I like to think he's a guy who needs some warmth to turn into Prince Charming Hate Heathcliff, though Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Not Rochester...it's George C. Scott (yum)! And Heathcliff is Timothy Dalton. If I hadn't seen those two movies, they'd be just a couple of jerks.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Huh. And I saw an old BBC movie with Timothy Dalton as Rochester. Excellent.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by oolung: But the thread made me think of how we often think that some or uther couple of fictional friends might be gay: like, say, Frodo and Sam from the Lotr. Horrible thought! I think making them gay would not only be obscene, but also spoil that what was vital in their relationship and in the story: their friendship.
It doesn't HAVE to be about sex, but if Sam and Frodo were traveling companions and friends, and Frodo just happened to be Freida, they could have an implied romantic tension about them without having sex. Not that there's anything wrong with that. We kind of expect it when there is a leading lady and a leading man. But when they are the same sex, why can't we accept that there might be that same kind of romantic tension?
But, I am definitely out on a limb here. No one else perceives what seems to be screaming to me from the pages. Now I wonder how much else of the literature I've read got completely misinterpreted in my fuzzy little brain.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But Jane was only about ten - maybe eleven depending on how much time passed before the Red Room and when she went to Lowood.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Were you capable of a romantic crush when you were in the 5th grade? I was.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, sure. But not capable of being someone's lover. Nor even of having sexual feelings. I was mostly capable of mooning over what we would name our children (one of each) and hitting the object of my affections with my bookbag.
I can't imagine Helen was feeling particularly amorous either, as the one night they slept together, she was dying of consumption.
[ January 13, 2006, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
Tante: I can accept the idea of some romantic notions, but for me it would spoil the powerful impact that the notion of 'JUST' FRIENDSHIP carries. Another matter, though, is when it stops being a friendship and starts being love. I mean, Frodo and Sam, like Jane and Helen, were friend but at the same time it's obvious they loved each other deeply (friendship is after all a kind of love), so maybe there were some romantic notions. People can be 'romantic' about their friends (ie in the 'I want us to be friends no matter what till the end of our lives' way). Why I wrote about the sexual aspect was because you started the topic writing about 'lesbian lovers', which for me suggests some sort of sexuality.
Hmmm... I'm not too sure I'm making myself clear...
Anyway, as for the topic: another reason why I think Helen and Jane couldn't have been lesbians, is because that would oppose the very meaning of the whole story. I think Jane is depicted in such a way as to represent a character that is very emotional and yet utterly moral. She can sacrifice her happiness in order to keep her principles (as opposed to Rochester, who is ready to trick her into getting married). So basically Jane is (imho) meant to be a perfectly moral character - and I think being a lesbian wouldn't agree with the notion (though it would be deliciously shrewd in a way Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:and I think being a lesbian wouldn't agree with the notion
Not a choice. Nothing to do with morals, perfect or otherwise.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it is unfortunate when all love between two people - even eight-year-old children - is taken to be sexual desire.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I agree completely, Katharina. My best friends have always been female. I've been constantly harassed by my family, who assume romantic overtones. This is very annoying at all times, and especially when said women are 'attached' in some way.
Sometimes I just get tired of explaining.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah:
quote:and I think being a lesbian wouldn't agree with the notion
Not a choice. Nothing to do with morals, perfect or otherwise.
Oh, they understood that back in 1847? Good to know.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's still only an opinion now. It defintely wasn't an accepted belief back then.
Posted by socal_chic (Member # 7803) on :
That whole idea is pretty much just ridiculous. I couldn't believe what I was reading...
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:It's still only an opinion now.
Hahahahaha! Funny joke.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Right...because you said so it HAS to be true.
Anything else you would like to clear up for us?
Black Holes? Existance of God?
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
while romance and sexual desire often coincide, i believe there are a multitude of scenarios of romance without sex, and sex without romance.
and i also think often the predecessor to sexual desire IS romance. i've always had crushes on boys, but most of my fantasies were purely romantic until i was about eleven, but even then it was a different sort of sexuality. but i admit, sexuality nonetheless. i honestly think children don't understand sex and sexual relationships enough to be (for instance) lesbians. children often experiment with each other, ie: show me yours and i'll show you mine; but the intention is rarely if ever seduction.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was mostly capable of mooning over what we would name our children (one of each) and hitting the object of my affections with my bookbag.
Ahhhh - I remember those days. As I recall, I had a pretty powerful swing, too.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. See also Heathcliff.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Hate Heathcliff, though ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Ahhhh - I remember those days. As I recall, I had a pretty powerful swing, too. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)