Why I Had No Sympathy for Rochester
During class discussions, one of the debatable topics we came across was who we felt more sympathy towards: Rochester or Antoinette? Like everyone else, I was on Antoinette's side in the beginning of the novel because we were hearing her side of the story and experiencing things with her. In the bathing pool scene with Tia and Antoinette, while I did think that Antoinette was being ignorant about the social cultural issues at hand, I also felt bad for her for not knowing right from wrong because her mother never distinguished them for her. I felt that Annette was a relatively absent mother who is partly to blame for the way Antoinette turned out. However, Annette also dealt with her fair share of struggles, especially after losing Pierre to a fire that is solely her husband's fault. Because of this, Annette's spiral into "madness" was justifiable as any mother who loses a son would go crazy. Seeing that Antoinette's mother-figure was Christophine, I had sympathy towards her because Christophine couldn't understand her cultural identity issue.
In part two of the novel, the story was told from the perspective of Rochester. When I learned that the next few chapters I was going to read would be from Rochester's perspective, I expected to see Rochester in a new light and sympathize with him a little, but that wasn't the case. In the beginning, I had no feelings or thoughts about Rochester - I was completely neutral about him besides the fact that he married someone he barely knew for money and property. As part two continued, I liked Rochester less and less because of how he "broke" Antoinette. He falsely led Antoinette to believe that he loved her and wanted what was best for her but then believed rumors about her the first chance he got. Ever since he didn't trust the authenticity of Antoinette and the island because of all the secrets he believed were being kept from him, my neutrality for him turned into dislike after realizing what a big fake he was. There was a short period of time when Antoinette drugged Rochester that people felt pity for Rochester, but I didn't. It seemed to me that Rochester got what he deserved. That said, I didn't find Antoinette completely blameless because she could have chosen to get back at Rochester in a saner and more effective way than drugging him. At the end, Rochester's decision to hurt Antoinette back by sleeping with Amelie (right under Antoinette) was a spiteful move that did him no benefit.
The last part of the novel went back to Antoinette's point of view but started with a short narration from Grace Poole, attempting to frame Rochester in a favorable light. Despite Poole's positive narration of Rochester, describing how visiting West Indies and marrying a Creole woman changed him (negatively), I was unmoved and continued resenting him for how he treated Antoinette. By the end of the novel, my resentment towards Rochester intensified to pure hatred when he turned Antoinette "crazy" by isolating her from society and locking her up in the attic. Overall, while both Antoinette and Rochester made significant mistakes that forever changed their path together, I feel more compassion for Antoinette than Rochester because of her troubled upbringing combined with the emotionally abusive treatment that Rochester inflicted upon her.
In part two of the novel, the story was told from the perspective of Rochester. When I learned that the next few chapters I was going to read would be from Rochester's perspective, I expected to see Rochester in a new light and sympathize with him a little, but that wasn't the case. In the beginning, I had no feelings or thoughts about Rochester - I was completely neutral about him besides the fact that he married someone he barely knew for money and property. As part two continued, I liked Rochester less and less because of how he "broke" Antoinette. He falsely led Antoinette to believe that he loved her and wanted what was best for her but then believed rumors about her the first chance he got. Ever since he didn't trust the authenticity of Antoinette and the island because of all the secrets he believed were being kept from him, my neutrality for him turned into dislike after realizing what a big fake he was. There was a short period of time when Antoinette drugged Rochester that people felt pity for Rochester, but I didn't. It seemed to me that Rochester got what he deserved. That said, I didn't find Antoinette completely blameless because she could have chosen to get back at Rochester in a saner and more effective way than drugging him. At the end, Rochester's decision to hurt Antoinette back by sleeping with Amelie (right under Antoinette) was a spiteful move that did him no benefit.
The last part of the novel went back to Antoinette's point of view but started with a short narration from Grace Poole, attempting to frame Rochester in a favorable light. Despite Poole's positive narration of Rochester, describing how visiting West Indies and marrying a Creole woman changed him (negatively), I was unmoved and continued resenting him for how he treated Antoinette. By the end of the novel, my resentment towards Rochester intensified to pure hatred when he turned Antoinette "crazy" by isolating her from society and locking her up in the attic. Overall, while both Antoinette and Rochester made significant mistakes that forever changed their path together, I feel more compassion for Antoinette than Rochester because of her troubled upbringing combined with the emotionally abusive treatment that Rochester inflicted upon her.
I wonder what our perspective would be if we had read Jane Eyre first, in which Rochester is a tragic hero (as far as I understand). If we had been introduced to Rochester before Antoinette, would we have been more sympathetic to him?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand and identify with your sentiments about Rochester, I can also see how Rochester's story is not entirely that of the villain - or, at least, he's a very compelling one. It showcases how we may all be driven to madness sometimes through the harshness of our reality, as I think both Antoinette and Rochester were. From his point of view, he is merely a second son trying to make his way in the world, who is suddenly presented with the upsetting problem of a mad wife and environment that threaten to tear down his life.
Would we give more respect to Rochester if we were actually in his situation? Granted he seems to only do it for the money, he really seems clueless in figuring out what he is doing and why he is doing it and where he really is. Granted his actions at times seem very evil like and I really can see why people hate him. Like, I don't see any sane person locking another person up in an attic. However, he can be seen as a second son trying to get by as he was not going to inherit anything, losing most of the wealth he has and life as he knows it. Is that truly a bad thing to do?
ReplyDeleteYou make good points. I totally fell on "Antoinette" side. However there might be some factors to explain Rochester's behavior. Nothing would excuse it, but Rhys could be critiquing larger trends of colonialism and gender roles instead of simply making Rochester a villain.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Rhys was trying to expose the problematic gender norms of the time rather than making Rochester a flat, villainous character. Really, the central tension in the novel stems from colonialist misogyny and not "Antoinette vs. Rochester". But I think that by "siding with Antoinette", readers show their support for female characters who resist the patriarchy that dominates their society.
DeleteRochester is literally the Chinese tourist that makes headline news for doing something like feed animals to an animal to a zoo, and then argues with the zookeeper. He has no respect of local customs and culture.
ReplyDelete