[ SECRET POST #3156 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3156 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Spider Riders]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Shameless]


__________________________________________________



05.
[The Mighty Boosh]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Glitch]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Fire Emblem: Awakening]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Kaikisen]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Kingdom Hearts 2]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Yu-Gi-Oh]














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 029 secrets from Secret Submission Post #451.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. http://i.imgur.com/E7Ibs4W.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

You have a point, but it's much wider than just Cullen vs Rochester. Women have been taught for ages that abusive brooding men are sexy.

[(Anonymous)]

Also women often find abusive brooding men sexy

[(Anonymous)]

Right. Because clearly they would never find them sexy of their own accord. Poor, idiot women, being socialized into having those problematic fantasies.

[meishuu]

Agree so much with this. As a I grew older I realised how insidious this actually was because it's everywhere. It's scary how people are quick to diminish abuse.

[(Anonymous)]

To be honest, I used to find those kinds of guys attractive a couple years ago. Now whenever I re-watch the stuff I used to find romantic, the guys come off as stalkers and the female character is useless without him. It's super cringeworthy.

It was just a phase for me, hopefully other girls eventually realize how gross that kind of behavior is...

[(Anonymous)]

Stephanie, not Stephen?

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, Stephenie

[(Anonymous)]

I see three possibilities here, in order of increasing weirdness

1. op meant stephanie meyer
2. stephanie meyer came out as trans
3. this guy is a huge fan of both twilight and jane eyre http://www.stephencmeyer.org/ ???

[(Anonymous)]

Or, OP actually meant Stephenie Meyer.

[(Anonymous)]

Stephen Meyer is her dad, who she's named after, hence her spelling "Stephenie".

[(Anonymous)]

Isn't this pretty well acknowledged, even by many fans of the book

[(Anonymous)]

My impression was that only people who barely know the book think it counts as a romance...

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone who swoons over Rochester didn't get the point of the novel. Jane Eyre was meant to be a critique of women's status in society, classism, and how a relationship with someone like Rochester would actually be harmful. He's not a romantic character and he was never intended to be. As with the other main male characters in the story, he is there to be resisted, not heeded, as Jane attempts to find her place in society. Jane doesn't want to marry him until they can be more equal; his injuries at the end, which require Jane to become his caretaker, were perhaps the only way in Victorian society that that could be achieved.

I also can't help but notice that most, if not all, of the readers who think Rochester is so wonderful and romantic tend to focus on the upper-class surroundings and pretty dresses and completely disregard the portion of the novel where Jane is abused, poor, homeless, and has to beg for food. They also disregard Rochester locking his wife in the attic, and taking three mistresses - while still married to Bertha and pining for Jane - as he travels through Europe.

Readers who find Rochester to be an ideal are exactly the kind of readers whose tastes were being satirized. Nearly 170 years after first publication, they still haven't gotten it.

[(Anonymous)]

What's your opinion of Wuthering Heights?

+1

[(Anonymous)]

So well said that I have nothing to add, except my +1.

[dahli]

Woah.

Never read the book and was just going to ask if the narrative paints him as someone who was meant to be desirable, but this definitely answer my question. Now I really want to read the book haha.

[(Anonymous)]

That ending, though. I got that finally they were supposed to be more equal, so she married him. That always seemed willfully naive to me.

A man of Rochester's temperament, suddenly disabled? He'd be worse than ever and impossible to live with. Jane is a fool.

The Victorians seemed to have this ideal of the disabled as saintly people but that's very far from the case. They're just like everyone else, except they're more pissed off because they're disabled, especially if the change to their life has just been recent.

[(Anonymous)]

Good comment, although I'm not sure about satirized.

[(Anonymous)]

ugh

Had to read this book for Eng Lit.

UGH

[(Anonymous)]

Lol no.

First off. I don't disagree that the situation with Bertha is shitty.

But locking her up in the attic, with a nurse, someone who actively takes care of her, who doesn't abuse her, doesn't chain her...is the best option Bertha had. Whatever her mental illness is, if she had been placed in an asylum, things would have been INCREDIBLY worse for her. It would have resulted in a lobotomy, or worse. Most likely repeatedly sexually assaulted, abused, beaten, and all the other horrible things they did asylums back then.

She repeatedly does things as a result of her mental illness, and Rochester never raises an unkind to her.

I don't remember him blaming it on her being promiscuous, but that sort of 'hysterics' was seen as a symptom of mental illness. WHICH IS NOT RIGHT but it was of that time.

He makes it actively clear that he has no idea if Adele is his. He's pretty sure she isn't, in fact. Also, fathering a bastard or not, he DID NOT have to take care of her. He could have put her in an orphanage, or left her with her mother. But instead he takes her in, finds her a teacher, takes care of her, and buys her shit.

Yes, a decent person would never abandon a child, but people with money like him did it all the fucking time.

No one saying he's Mr. Darcy. He isn't (and Mr Darcy has his own fucking issues). He is a complicated man, and misrepresenting the events in the book (especially removing the context of the time period in which it was written) is really disingenuous.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought a key part of the book was that his ward wasn't his natural daughter, and that he was used to the uninformed believing it was the case because he took her in, but he just didn't care.

But Rochester is a dick in a dozen other ways, so you're not wrong there. The ending was very strange and screwed up.

[(Anonymous)]

We want to like the dude because Jane likes him and Jane Eyre has nothing if not a very sympathetic protagonist. The novel suffers from a modern POV because he has to be the mystery, the plot and the love interest of the book which the heroine conquers.
There's some psychology in it, but I don't see Rochester as one psychologically coherent character. He's there to show off Jane.

The ending otherwise stroke me as wish fulfillment.

[(Anonymous)]

You're an idiot.

[arcadiaego]

To be fair, if he hadn't kept Bertha in the house, she would have been in a lunatic asylum which at that point in history would have been FAR worse. I'm not endorsing anything, just pointing out that he was in one way trying to protect her.