Comments | wasabi_poptart: Great Douchebags in Literature, part 2: Edward Rochester

wasabi_poptart

Great Douchebags in Literature, part 2: Edward Rochester

Mar 17, 2011 21:43

While I'm on the subject of the Brontes, I might as well discuss that other great anti-hero douchebag Edward Rochester, who wasn't as psychotic as Heathcliff, but still very much an asshole.

(Seriously, what was it with the Brontes and their shitheaded romantic ideals? Was it the Byron thing? Because, you know I totally get that, but considering ( Read more... )

Comments 8

kitteridge March 18 2011, 14:04:49 UTC

Brava!

I've seen the new Jane Eyre and don't like it as much as the one from 1997 with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg (and her outward-thrust chin) (plus, Anna Paquin as young Jane) ... but you of course make many excellent points here.

Let me know when you've seen it and we'll compare opinions, though.

wasabi_poptart March 19 2011, 06:19:05 UTC

It hasn't gotten here to Bmre yet AFAIK ... hopefully by next weekend!

(The comment has been removed)

wasabi_poptart March 18 2011, 17:33:21 UTC

And see, I thought it was the guys we knew who were the assholes.

rikibeth March 18 2011, 17:00:11 UTC

I kind of hated everything ABOUT Mr. Rochester when I was forced to read this at 15, and never understood the appeal of the book at all. I was DELIGHTED when I read Wide Sargasso Sea. It made so much sense!

Swooning over Mr. Darcy = swooning over Colin Firth in a WET SHIRT, tyvm. Although I do really like how he bailed Lydia out, because he knew damn well what an asshole George Wickham was, and felt bad about how his keeping his mouth shut to preserve his sister's reputation had wound up being trouble for the whole Bennett family (okay, Hot Pants Lydia seemed awfully pleased with herself even without the benefit of marriage, but it was making unwarranted trouble for Jane and Elizabeth).

wasabi_poptart March 19 2011, 06:18:13 UTC

I kind of liked George Wickham ... a damn sight more than I liked Darcy, anyway ... but I never could empathize with those Austen ninnies and maybe that's the whole problem right there

rikibeth March 19 2011, 13:18:28 UTC

That would be the problem, yeah. If you don't care whether they get married (and out from under their unbearable mother's roof, and are not left homeless when the property passes to their cousins because none of them have any appreciable income of their own and no way of earning it) then the book is pointless.

George Wickham was another Frank McCourt Sr.

jamesnorcross March 18 2011, 21:07:04 UTC

I am guessing that it is a case of the handsome gentleman being able to get away with anything, simply because he is handsome. If the character resembled, for instance, Danny DeVito rather than Timothy Dalton, he would not be able to get away with half of what you listed above.

wasabi_poptart March 19 2011, 00:35:31 UTC

It's true that good-looking guys get away with a lot of crap, but many men are incredibly attractive without being handsome. In fact, Mr. Rochester is specifically described in the book as *not* being handsome, and he was portrayed by both George C. Scott and Orson Welles (both very attractive but not handsome dudes). So, yeah, it's part of it, but not all of it.