Posted by AnneM on October 14, 1997 at 15:37:20:
In response to but are the Rochester types really so harmless?, written by Kate on October 14, 1997 at 13:25:00
Is it ok to like this in fictional characters knowing that in real life such characters may be the ones who beat up their wives? I worry that women might be seduced by the idea of a man who loves her "violently" (which is a pretty disturbing metaphor,when you think about it), whose passion is expressed in anger.
] I have always had difficulty with Rochester for this very reason. I think he treats Jane abominably early in the story - while he is trying to make her jealous. I read somewhere that the only reason he can submit to her in the end is because he has basically been emasculated - he is able to be helped by her only because he is no longer a whole man.
I think they come together because he knows what life is like without her. If he had
] I think I agree with Hinds - I'm not sure why women find a selfish, haughty, arrogant man attractive. If it does cover a centre which is more human well and good. But if it does not, the woman who believes that it might is marrying a very dangerous fantasy.
The only thing I can come up with is the mothering instinct. Some women want to mother "bad boys" and turn them around into "good boys". Very dangerous, and yes some romantic fiction feeds into this. I don't think
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.