Pomegranate Pngs ! Credit Not Necessary For Pngs! Like Or Reblog To Use, Don't Repost As Your Own Please.

jane eyre is a book i like a lot but also have intense feelings about bc i don’t interpret Rochester as a ‘sweet good guy hiding behind an intimidating shell’ and i dislike adaptations and retellings which try to soften him or make him out to be an aggrieved victim of society. the entire point of the novel imo is that Jane, in grasping her autonomy and personhood, decides to put her personal happiness and passion over expectations of ‘perfect moral womanhood’.

she rejects the virtuous, religious suitor who wants to devote their lives to missionary work and chooses Rochester, the man who treats her like an intellectual equal and who shares her dark sense of humor and fascination with wild things.

Rochester is not a good, upright guy. While he should be commended for not consigning his wife to an asylum where she’d be tortured and abused, he keeps her shut up in a dark attic cell and freely admits he married her primarily for her money and that he never tried to understand her as a person even before her mental illness.

The loss of his hand and the burn scars inflicted on him during the climax are absolutely supposed to carry moral judgment. He lied to and manipulated Jane, imprisoned his wife (who he hates), and just because he comes to see Jane as an equal, it doesn’t mean he suddenly believes men and women should share the same rights and privileges. He is still very much a man of his time and culture. But the point is that Jane’s life is so narrow and so limited that the only real way for her to experience some joy and freedom is to embrace Rochester, even if he’s a bastard. He loves her and she loves him.

Being with him will probably not make her a better person, but it will bring her pleasure, and it will be her choice, not something coerced or demanded of her. It complicates the ending of the book. Rochester’s a beast. But Jane is no angel either, and only by accepting this does she find peace with herself.

I'm starting to accept the fact that I am destined to mainly draw trees and the occasional little Snufkin. So here's the next sketchs, after long hikes everyone needs a rest, even little Snufkin.

"I like to see flowers growing, but when they are gathered, they cease to please. I look on them as things rootless and perishable; their likeness to life makes me sad. I never offer flowers to those I love." Villette by Charlotte Brontë

“Happiness is not a potato, to be planted in mould, and tilled with manure. Happiness is a glory shining far down upon us out of heaven. She is a divine dew which the soul, on certain of its summer mornings, feels dropping upon it from the amaranth bloom and golden fruitage of Paradise.”

– Villette, Charlotte Brontë

That Hamlet post reminds me, people blame Romeo and Juliet for "getting everyone killed", but the text itself very specifically blames the lords Capulet and Montague. If you want to get to the nitty gritty:

Mercutio got himself killed. Romeo was very specifically trying to not have a swordfight, and Mercutio decided to start one because he thought Romeo was being a pussy. Tybalt actually killed him, but if you're talking about who "got him killed," that was Mercutio fucking around and finding out.

Romeo killed Tybalt. This is the one death that I think you can reasonably lay at Romeo's feet. If he had run off with Benvolio and got the Prince's men, Tybalt would have been arrested. That said, if my best friend (no matter how stupid) was killed right in front of me and the killer told me that friend sucked and so did I, I cannot guarantee I would do differently.

Lady Capulet said she hired people to kill Romeo. He beat them to the punch on that, but I think it should be pointed out.

Romeo killed Paris in self-defense. There's a lot of different ways you can play this, and Paris did think he'd broken in to vandalize the tomb of his girlfriend, but once again Romeo specifically begged someone not to fight him and that wasn't enough.

Romeo killed himself because he thought Juliet was dead. Friar Lawrence had a stupid idea and Juliet followed through on it because her father was going to force her into bigamy (and arguably marital rape), so if anyone "got" this to happen it was Lord Capulet.

Juliet killed herself because her husband was dead, her cousin was dead, her parents had turned on her, the woman who she thought of as a second mother abandoned her, and she was in a room with one guy stabbed and another guy poisoned right as the law was about to break in. Once again, I don't know what I'd do in her situation.

My Shakespeare professor said that Romeo and Juliet is the only Shakespeare tragedy not caused because of anyone being evil- Lord Capulet and Tybalt (and Mercutio) are dicks, but they're not Iago or Richard III. None of them wanted the play to end in a pile of bodies. You can't even point to one specific act and say 'that was the specific action that caused all of this.' It's a surprisingly modern (as opposed to mythic) play in that regard.

stamps ✉️

Me at 14 and me at 22 are having a bonding moment

i like to believe that ophelia’s madness gave her a kind of meta knowledge of the plot— that she saw the tragic ending coming, knew that hamlet’s indecision would be his hamartia, that she realised gertrude and claudius were both poisoned with corruption from the beginning and instead of the customary funeral goers laying flowers at a grave, it was Ophelia— mad, at death’s door, about to die in less than 2 scenes— who handed flowers to the king, queen and protagonist as if the dead girl was mourning the living

I think kafka’s diaries are the strongest evidence that journaling is not necessarily good for your mental health

Just a thought… Rochester delays paying Jane her wages until she leaves to visit Mrs. Reed. Could it be that the reason behind this delay is more psychological than practical?

Consider this: Rochester might associate paying Jane with the transactions he had with his former mistresses, whom he paid for their company. Rochester never truly viewed Jane as just an employee. In his mind, he already had a deeper, more personal connection with her. Paying her would shatter this fantasy and reduce their relationship to a mere employer-employee dynamic, something he’s clearly uncomfortable with labelling their relationship as.

It's not that Rochester is stingy or unwilling to part with his money—quite the opposite, in fact. He enjoys being generous, almost to a fault. Even when Jane asks for leave, he doesn’t merely pay her the wages he owes; he offers her a £50 note, an amount far exceeding what she’s due. He wasn’t paying her as an employer but rather a “friend”. This suggests that Rochester’s reluctance to pay her isn’t about the money itself but rather the social implications of the transaction.

Rochester despises his past actions of hiring mistresses, equating it to "buying a slave." This disdain likely influences his feelings toward paying Jane. He doesn’t have an issue with paying his other female employees, but with Jane, it’s different. His romantic feelings complicate things. For Rochester, paying Jane is too reminiscent of paying for love, a notion that deeply disturbs him. This is why I believe he delays paying her.