Dear Jane Austen,
You are a liar. You too, Charlotte Bronte. You sinister witches connived millions of women into thinking that Darcy/Rochester-esque males exist in the world. They do not.
Here are the characteristics of a Darchester (Darcy/Rochester):
1. Seems like an arrogant arse
2. Is remarkably intelligent.
3. Broods regularly
4. Is emotionally unavailable
5. Handsome in an unconventional way
6. Then, in a shocking turn of events, reveals his affection for the plain, smart girl who he has pretended to have not given a thought about/pretended to dislike. Said girl is shocked, then pleased because (of course) she has been in love with him all along. Then they kiss outdoors beneath an enormous Tim Burton-esque tree in the English countryside. It then inevitably starts to rain. The maids are shocked. The siblings are shocked. The aunt disapproves. They marry anyway and live happily in love ever after.
This is not real life.
I had a girls night in with one of my favorites tonight. We painted our nails, gabbed, and watched BBC's Jane Eyre (so good, and so much better than the recent film.) I fell in love with Rochester. Bewitched by Bronte's/Masterpiece Theater's magic, I swooningly verbalized "I love boys" and released a giddy sigh. I then came to--such silly thoughts are unlike me (and if I have them I never say them)--and unleashed a whirlwind of thoughts toward my unassuming friend. I felt betrayed. Tricked, even.
Stupid Charlotte Bronte, Rochester doesn't exist! In real life, Rochester would totally choose Blanche Ingram. Or, more likely, would be a homosexual. No straight man would invest that much time in his perfectly coiffed hair.
Here's the thing. The first 5 traits of Darcys/Rochesters do exist in the real world. There is absolutely an abundance of the tall, sarcastic, oddly attractive pompous man who pretends not to care about anything. However, there does not come a point where they reveal their affection and/or insecurities/vulnerability and then a couple enters marital bliss. It is always the case that either a) real-world-Darcy is incredibly insecure and turns into a puddle of feelings and needs you or b) real-world-Darcy is just not that into you. Either way, stupid Jane Austen is responsible for deluding the smart, plain girl (read: me) into thinking that these pompous poopheads are valuable human beings that secretly care for us. Unfortunately, they're just a waste of time.
So fie on you, Jane. You too, Charlotte. Saucy minx.
PS: Jane Eyre is an idiot. If I started nannying in a castle and learned that there was a crazy Caribbean lady trapped in the attic trying to kill us all, I would run far, far away. I would not protect the pompous Rochester, despite his wildly attractive manner/face. At least Elizabeth Bennett would be more sensible than to do something like that...
4 comments:
Well, here's a Rochester saying, "You're wrong", and praying for his own intelligent AND attractive Jane. You sound more than a little bitter. Where's the idealist I knew?
I don't think we should blame Jane or Char... blame the Rochesters/Darcys. They are the one that decided to let chivalry die. Oh and blame the stupid women who actually get offended when one noble Rochester/Darcy actually exists and displays chivalry. I will forever look for Rochesters/Darcys and smile sweetly at them, even though I have already found my Mr. Rochester. On a side note, if you look for him you will find your Mr. Darcy.
How funny! I read your list of characteristics and I thought "Hey! I have a Darchester-esque gentleman in my life!" Which pleased me because it meant I had grown up enough to be Elizajane (more Elizabeth than Jane, tho). What you left out was the Elizajane characteristics, specifically this: Darchester falls in love with her because she is (related to the time period) her own woman. Independent, with her own thoughts, and ideals. She is as capable of taking care of herself. (In Jane's case, she winds up taking care of Rochester, really... The nannying continues....)
There are Darchesters all over the place. They don't want a princess, they want a match. Someone as capable as taking care of them as they are in taking care of her. It's fantasy meets reality.
Jane Austen didn't lie. She was telling the ladies to grow a pair.
Thank you so much for this post. You are absolutely right! If you read biographies of both Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte, you will find that they could not have the man that they wanted. They didn't even get to know the man that they wanted. They built him up in their imagination. Then they spent the rest of their lives writing books that included happy endings, the endings that they would have wanted to live.
Jane Austen got stuck on the issue of romantic love and continued to write about it for the rest of her life. Never married. Charlotte, too, once she did get married, and not to a man whom she wanted, she died in the first year of marriage - showing that she mentally could not get over her big love.
We, the women of our age, grew up reading their books and somehow believing that they spoke the truth - a possibility. We live our lives waiting for the Darcys and the Rochesters of this world. And we do ourselves a great diservice, because we never allow ourselves to love the typical, down to earth, much less picturesque male.
It seems that we have a choice. We can continue to live in a dream and wait for the Darcys or Rochesters to come out of the cracks (I certainly don't see them walking around - are they perhaps hiding?) We can spend lives waiting for them. Don't shatter my dream - women say. I want to believe that they exist. But while we want to believe, and while we spend time lost in these dreams, we are putting our lives on hold, we are not allowing ourselves to learn to love the men who surround us.
Jane Austen's and Charlotte Bronte's novels should come with an advisory - "do not believe everything you read" - maybe that would save many women from looking for something that doesn't exist :)
Post a Comment