the progressive imagery of the times call for the bringing of torches and candles
call should be calls. (The progressive) imagery (of the times) calls for...
to Rochester at least, sometimes and angel.
and should be an
His loss of sight takes from his the ability to impose constructions on others
his should be him
She’s not mentally ill so much as mentally sub-human,
I love this sentence. Also:
In a way she’s doubly concealed, first through the physical veil of Thornfield, but also through Rochester’s inability to speak of her as a human being.
It's a very strong point for highlighting the psychology of the Enlightenment. Freedom and equality for all is hard to live up to; freedom and equality for all humans is an easier task and allows one to justify sweeping the unmentionables under the rug.
Ironically, Rochester sees Jane clearly only when he’s blind. I would argue that more violently disempowering readings of the end of Jane Eyre fail to give weight to the fact that Rochester regains his sight eventually. He and Jane can and do live in marriage as full equals, with his visual powers restored to him.
I think closing with this particular argument makes your entire position stronger and more logically defensible. Female empowerment shouldn't be all about male disempowerment, particular in the framework you're working with. I think it would undermine your thesis to ignore the fact that he regains his sight - an equal footing, as it were.
The logic is sound, and flows nicely. Go forth and propose! :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-24 09:48 pm (UTC)the progressive imagery of the times call for the bringing of torches and candles
call should be calls. (The progressive) imagery (of the times) calls for...
to Rochester at least, sometimes and angel.
and should be an
His loss of sight takes from his the ability to impose constructions on others
his should be him
She’s not mentally ill so much as mentally sub-human,
I love this sentence. Also:
In a way she’s doubly concealed, first through the physical veil of Thornfield, but also through Rochester’s inability to speak of her as a human being.
It's a very strong point for highlighting the psychology of the Enlightenment. Freedom and equality for all is hard to live up to; freedom and equality for all humans is an easier task and allows one to justify sweeping the unmentionables under the rug.
Ironically, Rochester sees Jane clearly only when he’s blind. I would argue that more violently disempowering readings of the end of Jane Eyre fail to give weight to the fact that Rochester regains his sight eventually. He and Jane can and do live in marriage as full equals, with his visual powers restored to him.
I think closing with this particular argument makes your entire position stronger and more logically defensible. Female empowerment shouldn't be all about male disempowerment, particular in the framework you're working with. I think it would undermine your thesis to ignore the fact that he regains his sight - an equal footing, as it were.
The logic is sound, and flows nicely. Go forth and propose! :)