risserca

Ah, yes! I am currently reading and analyzing Jane Eyre for a Literary Studies class. I really appreciate the perspective of holding room for ambiguity: you can be feminist but still do things that other people claim don’t adhere to the strict “rules” of feminism, for example. I think that leaving room for grey, in analysis and real life, is important.

On the topic of equality, when you say that “Bronte makes it clear that Jane and Rochester’s union is based on equality and a spiritual connection,” I wonder: was it always an equal relationship? Was it only made equal after Rochester lost some of his physical faculties and his property, and Jane gained some wealth of her own? What might be the significance of this – that perhaps they were not equal at the beginning of their relationship, but that Jane chooses him when she feels that they are at last on the same footing? (Maybe that could be interpreted as the ultimate feminist choice!) I don’t really have an answer, but these were some things my class was discussing today, mixed with my own feelings, that came to mind. Lots of thoughts! Thanks for a great perspective!

I hadn’t thought about how the “consumption” of committing in mass murders (and literally consuming the victims’ brains) parallels consumption in a capitalist society, a lifestyle that Ellis is satirizing here. Really interesting! The self-loathing of Bateman was something else that hadn’t really caught my attention until this article. I will have to consider these things the next time I watch the movie.

The interpretation of someone becoming a hero or villain in response to pain is really powerful. I wonder if, in the future, there will be more moral ambiguity in heroes and villains in comic books; people who have a negative reaction to that pain, but who are not totally “evil.” Good point about the danger of extreme views for the sake of what is “good,” too.