What do you think?
Rate this book
Jane
Forced to drop out of an esteemed East Coast college after the sudden death of her parents, Jane Moore takes a nanny job at Thornfield Park, the estate of Nico Rathburn, a world-famous rock star on the brink of a huge comeback. Practical and independent, Jane reluctantly becomes entranced by her magnetic and brooding employer and finds herself in the midst of a forbidden romance.
But there's a mystery at Thornfield, and Jane's much-envied relationship with Nico is soon tested by an agonizing secret from his past. Torn between her feelings for Nico and his fateful secret, Jane must Does being true to herself mean giving up on true love?
An irresistible romance interwoven with a darkly engrossing mystery, this contemporary retelling of the beloved classic Jane Eyre promises to enchant a new generation of readers.
But there's a mystery at Thornfield, and Jane's much-envied relationship with Nico is soon tested by an agonizing secret from his past. Torn between her feelings for Nico and his fateful secret, Jane must Does being true to herself mean giving up on true love?
An irresistible romance interwoven with a darkly engrossing mystery, this contemporary retelling of the beloved classic Jane Eyre promises to enchant a new generation of readers.
373 pages, Hardcover
First published September 23, 2010
132 people are currently reading
6,979 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 1,727 reviews
February 4, 2016
When I think of Jane Eyre, I think of a dark mystery, beautiful prose, and strongly moral characters. Most of all, I think of the undercurrent of passion that burns through all of its primary characters, from the tortured Mr. Rochester to his poor mad wife, to the zealous Mr. Rivers to the unhappy and neglected Adele, and above all else, in the quietly determined Jane herself. It is very strange, therefore, to read a book based on this story that is so severely lacking in any of those elements.
This book would have been much better off if the author had abandoned the notion of basing this on Jane Eyre at all. But even taken on its own merits as a young adult novel, much of it really doesn't even make that much sense. There's just absolutely no way a girl with so little experience and interest in children would ever be entrusted to be the nanny of someone in Nico Rathburne's position, and no convincing reason (being that this is modern times) why he should not have been able to divorce his wife. And do most girls tend to ask their new employers whether he's been tested for sexually transmitted diseases? The relationship between Jane and Nico never felt genuine or loving or real, and really, very few of the characters have any life of their own either. Poor little Maddy, the whole reason why they come together in the first place, is relegated to merely a plot device, as are the other servants, the band members, Jane's siblings, etc. Nico's rock star status seems especially random and doesn't contribute to the story in any meaningful way, except as the realization of some sort of adolescent fantasy.
Jane herself is also a puzzle. There's no real reason given for her being as reserved as she is, either in her upbringing or her beliefs. Just because someone doesn't wear make-up or read gossip magazines and is bookish (though there's no actual evidence of her reading, by the way) doesn't mean she should be boring, for heaven's sake. This girl has so little about her that is interesting or unique, and what spirit she shows is lifted directly and reworked from Charlotte Bronte's own dialogue.
This doesn't mean that a contemporary take on Jane Eyre is a mistake. I think it's actually a great idea to do a modern rewrite on this story, because it's one filled with dramatic tension and romance and tragedy. But it's important that a good rewrite not only captures some spirit or ideal from its source material, but that it also catches the reader's imagination on its very own. As such, dear Reader, I sadly cannot recommend this particular version.
This book would have been much better off if the author had abandoned the notion of basing this on Jane Eyre at all. But even taken on its own merits as a young adult novel, much of it really doesn't even make that much sense. There's just absolutely no way a girl with so little experience and interest in children would ever be entrusted to be the nanny of someone in Nico Rathburne's position, and no convincing reason (being that this is modern times) why he should not have been able to divorce his wife. And do most girls tend to ask their new employers whether he's been tested for sexually transmitted diseases? The relationship between Jane and Nico never felt genuine or loving or real, and really, very few of the characters have any life of their own either. Poor little Maddy, the whole reason why they come together in the first place, is relegated to merely a plot device, as are the other servants, the band members, Jane's siblings, etc. Nico's rock star status seems especially random and doesn't contribute to the story in any meaningful way, except as the realization of some sort of adolescent fantasy.
Jane herself is also a puzzle. There's no real reason given for her being as reserved as she is, either in her upbringing or her beliefs. Just because someone doesn't wear make-up or read gossip magazines and is bookish (though there's no actual evidence of her reading, by the way) doesn't mean she should be boring, for heaven's sake. This girl has so little about her that is interesting or unique, and what spirit she shows is lifted directly and reworked from Charlotte Bronte's own dialogue.
This doesn't mean that a contemporary take on Jane Eyre is a mistake. I think it's actually a great idea to do a modern rewrite on this story, because it's one filled with dramatic tension and romance and tragedy. But it's important that a good rewrite not only captures some spirit or ideal from its source material, but that it also catches the reader's imagination on its very own. As such, dear Reader, I sadly cannot recommend this particular version.
December 23, 2010
I’m truly sorry, but I must say this: If you love Jane Eyre as much as I do, do not read this book. I can honestly say that had I not read Jane Eyre before reading this, this book would have destroyed Brontë’s novel for me—this coming from a girl who’s known the story of Jane Eyre since she was four years old (from watching the Timothy Dalton and Orson Welles film adaptations, finally reading it for the first time at age eleven), and has been in love with it ever since. After finishing Lindner’s rendition, I was left feeling utterly betrayed and depressed.
Lindner literally takes Brontë’s novel and paraphrases it. The only differences in the two books is the modern day setting in Connecticut/Manhattan, some of the names of the characters, the lack of focus on Jane’s childhood schooling, the romance between a rock star and his daughter’s nanny and some minor details regarding St. John Rivers� future plans (here named River St. John, though his sisters retain the ordinary names of Diana and Maria *rolling eyes*). The rest is exactly the same—the same order, the same conflicts, etc. While the madwoman in the attic story works in a 19th century setting, it just doesn’t cut it here in the modern day.
When I first saw Lindner’s novel, I was intrigued to discover how a modern author would take some of the themes addressed in Brontë’s work and put a fresh spin on it—a variation that while having the essence of Jane Eyre, offered something entirely new. A good example of what I’m trying to describe is Robin McKinley’s versions of the Beauty and the Beast tale. (You can even say that at its core, Jane Eyre is also essentially a variation of this tale as well, in terms of the characterization.) McKinley offers three versions of Beauty and the Beast�, and . While keeping the basic essentials of the fairytale, the dramatic changes to the story and plot in each version make it feel like you’re reading a completely different novel each time. Each story is a further digression away from the original fairytale, but that basic essence still colors the stories. That’s what I was looking for, but it was certainly not what I got.
You’d think that since Lindner is copying her story directly from Brontë’s novel, she couldn’t go wrong. But her paraphrasing cuts the soul out of the dialogues amongst the characters. For me, the language of Brontë’s novel builds the characters� their interactions and that witty banter helped me fall in love with Jane and Rochester and helped me understand how that initial spark developed into a burgeoning romance. Consider Rochester’s profession of his feelings, I think it goes something like this: “I have a queer feeling with regard to you, especially when you are near me, as now. It’s as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame. And if a distance came between us, I’m afraid that chord of communion will be snapped, and I’ve a nervous notion that I should take to bleeding inwardly.� Compare that beautiful passage to this: “Right. Even as I was giving you shit and you were standing up to me in that quiet, stubborn way you have, I had this feeling about you…that we were, you know� kindred spirits.� I felt like Lindner stabbed me with a penknife and twisted it in my heart. All of my favorite sections� every interaction between Jane and Rochester/Nico Rathburn have been reduced to this. There’s absolutely no chemistry between these two characters; and I couldn’t see how Jane’s affection for her employer developed into a “passionate love.� To me, it seems more like the shallow lustful yearnings of a groupie for her music idol; and on his side, a thirty-something year old man trying to recapture his youth by seducing a nineteen year old girl. Yuck!
Even though Nico doesn’t seem to be very articulate in his speech, I at least expected to be able to read some of his music lyrics—especially the lyrics of the song he wrote for Jane, as a means to get some understanding as to why she fell in love with him. But we don’t even get that—at the most there is one line, which isn’t enough to give any kind of information—since Lindner’s main focus is trying to cram in all the essential plot points from the original novel she’s copying. Yet while she does this, she leaves some of the plot points unfinished, namely the points that resulted from the “major� digressions she made from Brontë’s novel. Completely disheartening.
Lindner literally takes Brontë’s novel and paraphrases it. The only differences in the two books is the modern day setting in Connecticut/Manhattan, some of the names of the characters, the lack of focus on Jane’s childhood schooling, the romance between a rock star and his daughter’s nanny and some minor details regarding St. John Rivers� future plans (here named River St. John, though his sisters retain the ordinary names of Diana and Maria *rolling eyes*). The rest is exactly the same—the same order, the same conflicts, etc. While the madwoman in the attic story works in a 19th century setting, it just doesn’t cut it here in the modern day.
When I first saw Lindner’s novel, I was intrigued to discover how a modern author would take some of the themes addressed in Brontë’s work and put a fresh spin on it—a variation that while having the essence of Jane Eyre, offered something entirely new. A good example of what I’m trying to describe is Robin McKinley’s versions of the Beauty and the Beast tale. (You can even say that at its core, Jane Eyre is also essentially a variation of this tale as well, in terms of the characterization.) McKinley offers three versions of Beauty and the Beast�, and . While keeping the basic essentials of the fairytale, the dramatic changes to the story and plot in each version make it feel like you’re reading a completely different novel each time. Each story is a further digression away from the original fairytale, but that basic essence still colors the stories. That’s what I was looking for, but it was certainly not what I got.
You’d think that since Lindner is copying her story directly from Brontë’s novel, she couldn’t go wrong. But her paraphrasing cuts the soul out of the dialogues amongst the characters. For me, the language of Brontë’s novel builds the characters� their interactions and that witty banter helped me fall in love with Jane and Rochester and helped me understand how that initial spark developed into a burgeoning romance. Consider Rochester’s profession of his feelings, I think it goes something like this: “I have a queer feeling with regard to you, especially when you are near me, as now. It’s as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame. And if a distance came between us, I’m afraid that chord of communion will be snapped, and I’ve a nervous notion that I should take to bleeding inwardly.� Compare that beautiful passage to this: “Right. Even as I was giving you shit and you were standing up to me in that quiet, stubborn way you have, I had this feeling about you…that we were, you know� kindred spirits.� I felt like Lindner stabbed me with a penknife and twisted it in my heart. All of my favorite sections� every interaction between Jane and Rochester/Nico Rathburn have been reduced to this. There’s absolutely no chemistry between these two characters; and I couldn’t see how Jane’s affection for her employer developed into a “passionate love.� To me, it seems more like the shallow lustful yearnings of a groupie for her music idol; and on his side, a thirty-something year old man trying to recapture his youth by seducing a nineteen year old girl. Yuck!
Even though Nico doesn’t seem to be very articulate in his speech, I at least expected to be able to read some of his music lyrics—especially the lyrics of the song he wrote for Jane, as a means to get some understanding as to why she fell in love with him. But we don’t even get that—at the most there is one line, which isn’t enough to give any kind of information—since Lindner’s main focus is trying to cram in all the essential plot points from the original novel she’s copying. Yet while she does this, she leaves some of the plot points unfinished, namely the points that resulted from the “major� digressions she made from Brontë’s novel. Completely disheartening.
April 26, 2016
this is my review from the beginning of the book to where i ended on page 212. so if there is anything better past that, i will never know.
and now my review..
you have got to be kidding me?! i am surprised that none of the reviews that i read brought up the ludicrous fact that Jane has sex with Mr. Rathburn. is that what makes this "retelling" enchanting "for a new general of readers?" because who is her target audience that April would completely alter and, in fact, disregard this most important and character revealing decision that Jane makes? Ms. Bronte's Jane Eyre's decision to wait to be with the man she loves is a building block on her firmness of character, on her morals. why turn her into an everyday slut for the sake of reaching a younger audience?
in Ms. Bronte's jane eyre Mr. Rochester tries to convince Jane to live with him and sleep with him saying, “Who in the world cares for you? or who will be injured by what you do?�
she replies,
“I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God. � Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this. � If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth? They have a worth—so I have always believed. � Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations, are all I have at this hour to stand by: there I plant my foot.�
THIS is Jane Eyre. THIS is a role model for every generation of readers. a woman who stands by her morals and respects herself, even in moments of temptation and trial.
and now my review..
you have got to be kidding me?! i am surprised that none of the reviews that i read brought up the ludicrous fact that Jane has sex with Mr. Rathburn. is that what makes this "retelling" enchanting "for a new general of readers?" because who is her target audience that April would completely alter and, in fact, disregard this most important and character revealing decision that Jane makes? Ms. Bronte's Jane Eyre's decision to wait to be with the man she loves is a building block on her firmness of character, on her morals. why turn her into an everyday slut for the sake of reaching a younger audience?
in Ms. Bronte's jane eyre Mr. Rochester tries to convince Jane to live with him and sleep with him saying, “Who in the world cares for you? or who will be injured by what you do?�
she replies,
“I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God. � Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this. � If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth? They have a worth—so I have always believed. � Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations, are all I have at this hour to stand by: there I plant my foot.�
THIS is Jane Eyre. THIS is a role model for every generation of readers. a woman who stands by her morals and respects herself, even in moments of temptation and trial.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 22, 2010
What if . . .?
Jane Eyre got her job at Discriminating Nannies, Inc.
And Mr. Rochester drove a fast car on a hairpin turn.
And they both ran into each other, of course, then floated on plastic rafts in the pool, flirted at rehearsals for his world rock band tour, and, oh yes, endured all the angst and self-doubt, jealousy and drama of the original tale.
Well, then you would have Jane—April Linder’s sparkling new novel of impossible love, tragic deceit, and . . . a wicked fine guitar solo.
Jane Eyre got her job at Discriminating Nannies, Inc.
And Mr. Rochester drove a fast car on a hairpin turn.
And they both ran into each other, of course, then floated on plastic rafts in the pool, flirted at rehearsals for his world rock band tour, and, oh yes, endured all the angst and self-doubt, jealousy and drama of the original tale.
Well, then you would have Jane—April Linder’s sparkling new novel of impossible love, tragic deceit, and . . . a wicked fine guitar solo.
September 23, 2016
I thought for sure I'd like this, no matter how terrible it was, because I'm 100% trash for Jane Eyre, so how could I possibly not love a modernised retelling?!
Turns out that when the main character is awful and ridiculously judgmental, things don't go exactly the way you want them to...
I made it a whopping 38 pages into this book before I noped my way out of it, and it's for one simple reason: Jane. She's a pretty awful character, and I had no desire to be in her head for another 330 pages.
So the basic gist of the story is that Jane is a 19 year old college student at Sarah Lawrence. But she's forced to drop out and become a nanny when her parents are killed in a car accident. Her older sister wants nothing to do with her, and her older brother sells the family home and disappears with the money. Jane is left basically penniless and goes to a nanny agency.
Thanks to her studies in art and French literature (which is in no way the same as "A knowledge of French", lady at the nanny agency) as well as her disgust about popular music and the fact that she's too stuck up to give a shit about celebrities, she lands a sweet gig as nanny to the five year old daughter of rock star, Nico Rathburn. Who, incidentally, was already posters-on-the-wall famous when she was in elementary school. We're not told how old he is, but I'm guessing at least 35-40, which makes the relationship suuuuuuper icky. (Yes, I KNOW the original features a romantic relationship between an 18 year old girl and her 36 year old employer. But IT WAS THE NINETEENTH CENTURY)
She goes and does a bunch of research on Nico in the computer labs before Sarah Lawrence kicks her ass to the curb, and she finds out that he has a history of drug problems and tumultuous romantic relationships, and gets all "Ew, rich people are gross and I want nothing to do with them"-y. Soooo...go back to the agency and ask for a different job?
On her way to Nico's fancypants mansion in Connecticut, she tells us all about how hideously ugly she is - including the fact that as a kid, she overheard her parents talking about how hideously ugly she is and how gross and offputting her personality is. CLASS ACT, PARENTS - and says that in high school she at least worked her shit out enough to part her hair in the middle and French braid it every day. Girl. Unless you're spending your life with your hair in pigtails, you can't really do both...
She then sad pandas about her appearance before saying "I didn't expend a lot of effort on my looks; I liked to think I had better things to do with my time than shop for lip gloss and clothes." Um. Maybe don't feel shit about your appearance if you put in literally zero effort and think you're above it all? Especially not when you've already told the reader about how thin you are and how green your eyes are.
Anyway, when she finally gets to the house, the housekeeper is shocked to discover that Jane's never listened to her employer's music. She - who's already told us that the full sum of her musical training was playing the violin at the age of seven, which she remembers nothing about - proceeds to give us the following:
"At first, I wasn't impressed with the music, much less transformed by it. I'd never liked rock music much; the vocals often struck me as abrasive, more yelling than singing, and more about attitude than talent. The first album was made up of simple three-chord pop songs, with an occasional romantic ballad thrown in. The second was more musically and lyrically complex. I remembered from my research that a critic had called the second album "Dylanesque in its wild inventiveness," but to my ear the lyrics were undisciplined, full of free association and cryptic personal statements."
And this, I should add, was the point where I went "You know what, Jane? You're a judgmental bitch, and I'm done with you." Flipping through the remainder of the book confirmed that this was an excellent life choice.
But hey - if you like retellings of classic literature where men in positions of power fall in instalove with their teenage employees, give it a go. You'll probably like it more than I did.
Turns out that when the main character is awful and ridiculously judgmental, things don't go exactly the way you want them to...
I made it a whopping 38 pages into this book before I noped my way out of it, and it's for one simple reason: Jane. She's a pretty awful character, and I had no desire to be in her head for another 330 pages.
So the basic gist of the story is that Jane is a 19 year old college student at Sarah Lawrence. But she's forced to drop out and become a nanny when her parents are killed in a car accident. Her older sister wants nothing to do with her, and her older brother sells the family home and disappears with the money. Jane is left basically penniless and goes to a nanny agency.
Thanks to her studies in art and French literature (which is in no way the same as "A knowledge of French", lady at the nanny agency) as well as her disgust about popular music and the fact that she's too stuck up to give a shit about celebrities, she lands a sweet gig as nanny to the five year old daughter of rock star, Nico Rathburn. Who, incidentally, was already posters-on-the-wall famous when she was in elementary school. We're not told how old he is, but I'm guessing at least 35-40, which makes the relationship suuuuuuper icky. (Yes, I KNOW the original features a romantic relationship between an 18 year old girl and her 36 year old employer. But IT WAS THE NINETEENTH CENTURY)
She goes and does a bunch of research on Nico in the computer labs before Sarah Lawrence kicks her ass to the curb, and she finds out that he has a history of drug problems and tumultuous romantic relationships, and gets all "Ew, rich people are gross and I want nothing to do with them"-y. Soooo...go back to the agency and ask for a different job?
On her way to Nico's fancypants mansion in Connecticut, she tells us all about how hideously ugly she is - including the fact that as a kid, she overheard her parents talking about how hideously ugly she is and how gross and offputting her personality is. CLASS ACT, PARENTS - and says that in high school she at least worked her shit out enough to part her hair in the middle and French braid it every day. Girl. Unless you're spending your life with your hair in pigtails, you can't really do both...
She then sad pandas about her appearance before saying "I didn't expend a lot of effort on my looks; I liked to think I had better things to do with my time than shop for lip gloss and clothes." Um. Maybe don't feel shit about your appearance if you put in literally zero effort and think you're above it all? Especially not when you've already told the reader about how thin you are and how green your eyes are.
Anyway, when she finally gets to the house, the housekeeper is shocked to discover that Jane's never listened to her employer's music. She - who's already told us that the full sum of her musical training was playing the violin at the age of seven, which she remembers nothing about - proceeds to give us the following:
"At first, I wasn't impressed with the music, much less transformed by it. I'd never liked rock music much; the vocals often struck me as abrasive, more yelling than singing, and more about attitude than talent. The first album was made up of simple three-chord pop songs, with an occasional romantic ballad thrown in. The second was more musically and lyrically complex. I remembered from my research that a critic had called the second album "Dylanesque in its wild inventiveness," but to my ear the lyrics were undisciplined, full of free association and cryptic personal statements."
And this, I should add, was the point where I went "You know what, Jane? You're a judgmental bitch, and I'm done with you." Flipping through the remainder of the book confirmed that this was an excellent life choice.
But hey - if you like retellings of classic literature where men in positions of power fall in instalove with their teenage employees, give it a go. You'll probably like it more than I did.
March 28, 2021
Another retelling of Jane Eyre. Nico Rathburn is a rock star in need of a nanny. It actually wasn't as trite as it sounds. The writing is good, but the tone is a bit flat at times. I was in the mood for a spot of Jane Eyre. I'm not very fond of these retellings but fell prey to the interesting book cover.
February 21, 2011
Let me start by saying that I love Jane Eyre. There’s something so effortless about the way Bronte weaves her stories that even if I may not like the plot, I will invariably read her book for the strength of the prose alone. The mastery of the words, the beauty of the sentences � all these things that has the literature buff in me swooning.
I won’t say that Jane Eyre is timeless. I mean, yes, the themes explored in Jane Eyre are timeless but the actual events? No, not so much. At least, I don’t think so.
Jane retells Jane Eyre from a modern perspective. The character is a nineteen (or perhaps 20?) year old girl who is simply called Jane. Now this is going to turn into a comparison and I guess that it would have been inevitable.
There is a reason Bronte introduced the reader to Jane when she was a young child. It let the reader experience the sparseness of Jane’s childhood, her sufferings in the boarding school, it developed her character and made her into the heroine that people love so much. We are with her as she develops from the precocious Jane to the dignified Jane. Who can forget the scene in the parlour when Jane finally spits outrage at her Aunt for the vile things she has had done to her? Or that tender scene when Jane says goodbye to her only friend at the boarding school. This lays the foundations of a sisterhood between Jane and her female readers; makes Jane accessible to her readers and creates a reason for Jane to be the way she is.
Lindner does not devote as much time to Modern Jane in her childhood and therefore sacrifices a gradual development of character. We are, instead, presented with a cold, remote Jane who we are “told� has suffered through certain indignities and cruelties due to neglectful parents and horrendous siblings. I could not relate to this Jane. I mean, I could understand the reason for her coldness but it wasn’t something that led me to empathize with her. If we had been shown some of her childhood, then yeah. Also, we didn’t see any boarding school in action, we didn’t see Jane with a spark. We see Jane as a very boring creature who - I mean, come on now, you are living in the 21st century, in America. You really want to tell me that you have no choice but to become a nanny against your will? I mean, there are such things as student loans and state colleges. It’s a time when opportunity is available for the taking and yes, I’m getting carried away. But see, this is the bit about logic. It didn’t make sense to me.
Moving along, Nico Rathburn. Yeah. Hm. Right. No. He didn’t work for me. I’m sorry. I tried really hard to like him but I couldn’t help but thinking YOU CREEP THAT GIRL IS ONLY NINETEEN YEARS OLD.
You see? I couldn’t get over it. Why did he love her? You mean to tell me that he, being as beautiful as he purportedly is, with as large fan base as he has, he can’t find anyone prettier and more charming than Jane? Because really, a limp noodle would be more interesting than this Jane. Why does he love her so darned much? Why? I don’t see it. And okay, I thought the original Rochester was weird too but this one, with his childish behaviour? Come on, dude. You are, I’m presuming in your 30′s. Mid-30′s. Yet the manner in which he behaves? Even a teenager would express horror at it. There’s no charm in it. He just seems to love playing head games and you know what that means right?
Loads of relationship counseling.
Moving briskly along. In this century, keeping the crazy wife at home? Not so probable. I mean, come on. Nico says “I’ve seen those places, they’re horrible.� Um� you are a rich guy and you can afford people who will treat your wife with kindness � people who KNOW what they are doing instead of that under-cover-alcoholic, not very responsible caretaker who seems to be too drunk to keep a proper eye on the crazy woman. If you love and respect her that much, keep her in a place (with proper medication and professional help) where she’ll have at least a semblance of happiness. This is the 21st century. That kind of reasoning just does not work in this instance. I think Lindner should have tried something else. A deviation from the original to maintain the credibility. In Original Jane Eyre, it works because the modern reader can accept that things have no progressed as far as they have today but in these times, it’s not probable. Not impossible but not something you’d expect someone like Nico Rathburn to do.
And St. John. He’s kind of an asshole, isn’t he? I thought that in the original novel too. He seems more ridiculous in this day and age than he did in the original. I mean, hello, you’re not going to be alone in Haiti. There are other aid missions out there so you can have people you can talk to (I mean, he’s insinuating that Jane will be the only one he can be close to and understand in Haiti � if you don’t think that’s evincing superiority where the Haitians are concerned � well, then, I don’t know what to say it to you.) And why can’t you let Jane make up her own mind without being all insistent about it. Let’s not talk much about him.
I feel that there’s a distinct difference in the culture that Jane Eyre was written in and the one Jane is written in. Jane, the modern version, has been written for a culture that is part of a time past. And that is why it does not work. Jane Eyre answered the desire women had for strength, it was a relevant piece for that time period and that’s what made it successful. Another reason for the success was Jane’s character � that strength she illustrated by running away from Rochester, surviving on her own and then going to be him as a woman, capable of directing her own destiny. She chooses to return to him. This Jane does not show that strength of character. In fact, I remember her saying that she does not know why she ran away. That negates all the necessary growth (or in this case, lack of it) that she did while away.
A successful modern version would have retained the themes apparent in Jane Eyre and known when to deviate from the original and when to retain the plot. It would have successfully addressed the contemporary issues or found a way to address the questions of logic that this one ignored. Jane would have been a woman that evoked admiration and sparked in her female readers a desire to emulate. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it did not and I did not want to be anything like Jane. The original Jane has a vibrancy that she keeps suppressed. This Jane…well. You should know what I think.
I won’t say that Jane Eyre is timeless. I mean, yes, the themes explored in Jane Eyre are timeless but the actual events? No, not so much. At least, I don’t think so.
Jane retells Jane Eyre from a modern perspective. The character is a nineteen (or perhaps 20?) year old girl who is simply called Jane. Now this is going to turn into a comparison and I guess that it would have been inevitable.
There is a reason Bronte introduced the reader to Jane when she was a young child. It let the reader experience the sparseness of Jane’s childhood, her sufferings in the boarding school, it developed her character and made her into the heroine that people love so much. We are with her as she develops from the precocious Jane to the dignified Jane. Who can forget the scene in the parlour when Jane finally spits outrage at her Aunt for the vile things she has had done to her? Or that tender scene when Jane says goodbye to her only friend at the boarding school. This lays the foundations of a sisterhood between Jane and her female readers; makes Jane accessible to her readers and creates a reason for Jane to be the way she is.
Lindner does not devote as much time to Modern Jane in her childhood and therefore sacrifices a gradual development of character. We are, instead, presented with a cold, remote Jane who we are “told� has suffered through certain indignities and cruelties due to neglectful parents and horrendous siblings. I could not relate to this Jane. I mean, I could understand the reason for her coldness but it wasn’t something that led me to empathize with her. If we had been shown some of her childhood, then yeah. Also, we didn’t see any boarding school in action, we didn’t see Jane with a spark. We see Jane as a very boring creature who - I mean, come on now, you are living in the 21st century, in America. You really want to tell me that you have no choice but to become a nanny against your will? I mean, there are such things as student loans and state colleges. It’s a time when opportunity is available for the taking and yes, I’m getting carried away. But see, this is the bit about logic. It didn’t make sense to me.
Moving along, Nico Rathburn. Yeah. Hm. Right. No. He didn’t work for me. I’m sorry. I tried really hard to like him but I couldn’t help but thinking YOU CREEP THAT GIRL IS ONLY NINETEEN YEARS OLD.
You see? I couldn’t get over it. Why did he love her? You mean to tell me that he, being as beautiful as he purportedly is, with as large fan base as he has, he can’t find anyone prettier and more charming than Jane? Because really, a limp noodle would be more interesting than this Jane. Why does he love her so darned much? Why? I don’t see it. And okay, I thought the original Rochester was weird too but this one, with his childish behaviour? Come on, dude. You are, I’m presuming in your 30′s. Mid-30′s. Yet the manner in which he behaves? Even a teenager would express horror at it. There’s no charm in it. He just seems to love playing head games and you know what that means right?
Loads of relationship counseling.
Moving briskly along. In this century, keeping the crazy wife at home? Not so probable. I mean, come on. Nico says “I’ve seen those places, they’re horrible.� Um� you are a rich guy and you can afford people who will treat your wife with kindness � people who KNOW what they are doing instead of that under-cover-alcoholic, not very responsible caretaker who seems to be too drunk to keep a proper eye on the crazy woman. If you love and respect her that much, keep her in a place (with proper medication and professional help) where she’ll have at least a semblance of happiness. This is the 21st century. That kind of reasoning just does not work in this instance. I think Lindner should have tried something else. A deviation from the original to maintain the credibility. In Original Jane Eyre, it works because the modern reader can accept that things have no progressed as far as they have today but in these times, it’s not probable. Not impossible but not something you’d expect someone like Nico Rathburn to do.
And St. John. He’s kind of an asshole, isn’t he? I thought that in the original novel too. He seems more ridiculous in this day and age than he did in the original. I mean, hello, you’re not going to be alone in Haiti. There are other aid missions out there so you can have people you can talk to (I mean, he’s insinuating that Jane will be the only one he can be close to and understand in Haiti � if you don’t think that’s evincing superiority where the Haitians are concerned � well, then, I don’t know what to say it to you.) And why can’t you let Jane make up her own mind without being all insistent about it. Let’s not talk much about him.
I feel that there’s a distinct difference in the culture that Jane Eyre was written in and the one Jane is written in. Jane, the modern version, has been written for a culture that is part of a time past. And that is why it does not work. Jane Eyre answered the desire women had for strength, it was a relevant piece for that time period and that’s what made it successful. Another reason for the success was Jane’s character � that strength she illustrated by running away from Rochester, surviving on her own and then going to be him as a woman, capable of directing her own destiny. She chooses to return to him. This Jane does not show that strength of character. In fact, I remember her saying that she does not know why she ran away. That negates all the necessary growth (or in this case, lack of it) that she did while away.
A successful modern version would have retained the themes apparent in Jane Eyre and known when to deviate from the original and when to retain the plot. It would have successfully addressed the contemporary issues or found a way to address the questions of logic that this one ignored. Jane would have been a woman that evoked admiration and sparked in her female readers a desire to emulate. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it did not and I did not want to be anything like Jane. The original Jane has a vibrancy that she keeps suppressed. This Jane…well. You should know what I think.
August 17, 2010
I have had my eye on this book ever since I saw it pop up around the blogosphere a few months back. As you know, I am a sucker of the largest order for a good retelling. Retold fairy tales in particular are a weakness of mine, but when I saw that 's upcoming novel JANE was, in fact, a modern retelling of , I didn't know my heart could beat quite that fast. I got my masters in literature, specifically Victorian lit, and has been a special favorite of mine ever since I first read it on a cross country road trip when I was 14. As I am also a huge fan of historical fiction and YA, I think we can safely say I am sitting just about dead center in this novel's target audience. But it should also be noted that quite a bit of that quickening heartbeat can be chalked up to this breathtaking cover. I want to marry this cover. I think it perfectly conveys what you are getting with this package--from the misty moors landscape feel, to the girl in the timeless outfit that could be either Victorian or present day, to the bold pink lettering of the title. It's a modern . It's got some excellently updated twists. It is at once faithful and fresh. In other words--it's the real deal.
Jane Moore walks up the stone steps of Discriminating Nannies, Inc. with several desperate hopes in her heart. Having just completed her freshman year at Sarah Lawrence, she is forced to drop out and search for work as a nanny when her parents are killed in a car crash and her indifferent siblings make off with what inheritance there is, leaving Jane to give up her education and scramble to support herself as best she can. An art major with only a few child development classes under her belt to qualify her for the job, she feels certain the agency won't deign to look twice at her short resume, but will send her packing in short order. It turns out, however, that she does have one rare and highly sought after qualification. Shy and somewhat taciturn by nature, she does not bother to keep up with popular culture. And, as such, she just might be the perfect nanny for one of the agency's high profile clients. Nico Rathburn, an enormously famous rock star who is trying to mount a comeback tour, has recently found himself in need of a nanny to look after his five-year-old daughter Maddy. And, just like that, Jane is off to Mr. Rathburn's Connecticut mansion Thornfield Park. With a single suitcase containing all her meager belongings, she approaches her new position with some hope but much more trepidation, wondering if she'll be up to the task of being in such close proximity to the rock star's infamously wild lifestyle and temperament in addition to taking care of his little girl. But Thornfield Park turns out to be not at all what she expected. And neither does Nico Rathburn.
Reader, I loved this book so much I can't stop thinking about it. I had such a gut feeling about JANE from the first time I heard about it and it really is one of the most satisfying feelings in the world when your first uninformed impressions of a book come true. It was honestly difficult putting this one down at night and then getting through the next day all the way until reading time once more. I kept eying it, sitting there in my purse. I finished it somewhere in the vicinity of 2 AM a couple of nights ago, with an enormous grin on my face and no one to talk to about it. You see, this is an incredibly faithful retelling. I was actually caught off guard at how closely it sticks to the original tale. What made it even more astonishing, however, was how managed to keep so much from the original story and make it her own at the same time. It exists in the marvelous space, where the old and the new meet and wonderful things happen. Nothing about it felt odd or disjointed. This Jane is definitely a descendant of the original. She is just as independent, just as practical and plainspoken and consistent. And Ms. Lindner delicately brought out her vulnerable side, born of such a solitary upbringing, and my heart went out to her. I loved her and worried about her. I wanted to protect her from what I knew was coming. But the thing is? She didn't need me. She was fully up to the task of her story and I was free to sit back, mesmerized, and enjoy the whole thing unfold. A favorite passage from one of Jane's few remembrances of her childhood (taken from my uncorrected ARC):
I love that whisper sent out into the void. She is not. And her spirit will not be dimmed by rough treatment on the part of people who ought to love her. And--while we're on the subject of love. JANE features a splendid one. I have noted that, despite my love for the original book, I often have trouble with May-December romances, in which there is a large age gap between the two principal characters. But I was immediately and fully behind Jane and Nico. Nico is . . . well, Nico is hot. Yeah. You're going to love Nico. The rock star angle works exceedingly well and definitely adds a sexier tone to the novel as a whole. His history is nothing if not cringe-worthy and it is in turns painful and hilarious watching these two beings from different worlds interact. Their relationship is handled so simply and naturally that it somehow becomes its own entity, both echoing and extending the relationship that inspired it. I fell in love with them on their own merits, if you will. At times, my pulse raced for them. This book has the potential to be an excellent crossover novel as these two are old souls and their romance reflects that, enhanced as it is by the modern setting. Happily, the writing matches the characterization. Assured and smooth, I felt shored up by the words. How many books have you read where you already knew exactly what was going to happen, and yet they still held you spellbound? Because that's exactly what happened to me here. As with the best retellings, JANE will leave you utterly satisfied, and with a strong desire to pull out that old copy of and settle in for a nice, long visit with old friends.
Jane Moore walks up the stone steps of Discriminating Nannies, Inc. with several desperate hopes in her heart. Having just completed her freshman year at Sarah Lawrence, she is forced to drop out and search for work as a nanny when her parents are killed in a car crash and her indifferent siblings make off with what inheritance there is, leaving Jane to give up her education and scramble to support herself as best she can. An art major with only a few child development classes under her belt to qualify her for the job, she feels certain the agency won't deign to look twice at her short resume, but will send her packing in short order. It turns out, however, that she does have one rare and highly sought after qualification. Shy and somewhat taciturn by nature, she does not bother to keep up with popular culture. And, as such, she just might be the perfect nanny for one of the agency's high profile clients. Nico Rathburn, an enormously famous rock star who is trying to mount a comeback tour, has recently found himself in need of a nanny to look after his five-year-old daughter Maddy. And, just like that, Jane is off to Mr. Rathburn's Connecticut mansion Thornfield Park. With a single suitcase containing all her meager belongings, she approaches her new position with some hope but much more trepidation, wondering if she'll be up to the task of being in such close proximity to the rock star's infamously wild lifestyle and temperament in addition to taking care of his little girl. But Thornfield Park turns out to be not at all what she expected. And neither does Nico Rathburn.
Reader, I loved this book so much I can't stop thinking about it. I had such a gut feeling about JANE from the first time I heard about it and it really is one of the most satisfying feelings in the world when your first uninformed impressions of a book come true. It was honestly difficult putting this one down at night and then getting through the next day all the way until reading time once more. I kept eying it, sitting there in my purse. I finished it somewhere in the vicinity of 2 AM a couple of nights ago, with an enormous grin on my face and no one to talk to about it. You see, this is an incredibly faithful retelling. I was actually caught off guard at how closely it sticks to the original tale. What made it even more astonishing, however, was how managed to keep so much from the original story and make it her own at the same time. It exists in the marvelous space, where the old and the new meet and wonderful things happen. Nothing about it felt odd or disjointed. This Jane is definitely a descendant of the original. She is just as independent, just as practical and plainspoken and consistent. And Ms. Lindner delicately brought out her vulnerable side, born of such a solitary upbringing, and my heart went out to her. I loved her and worried about her. I wanted to protect her from what I knew was coming. But the thing is? She didn't need me. She was fully up to the task of her story and I was free to sit back, mesmerized, and enjoy the whole thing unfold. A favorite passage from one of Jane's few remembrances of her childhood (taken from my uncorrected ARC):
On one of my days off, cold rain kept me in my room until late afternoon when the sun finally broke through. I pulled on my rainboots, grabbed my raincoat and my tackle box full of art supplies, and hurried out the door. It felt so good to be outside that for once I didn't stop at the high iron fence surrounding Thornfield Park. The guard on duty was a young, open-faced man with long blond hair. He waved me through the gate, smiling, and looked for a moment as though he wanted to speak to me. I considered stopping to introduce myself, but the very thought brought a flush to my cheeks. I looked down at my feet, letting my hair fall forward to curtain my face, and kept hurrying on.
"Smile at the other children," I remember my mother telling me at the little playground near our house. "Don't cling to me. Go over to the monkey bars and say hello."
I followed her instructions and walked over to the monkey bars. I even tried to say hello to the laughing girls hanging upside down from the topmost bars, but they were so happy and familiar with each other, their long hair sweeping from side to side like banners, that I felt the words die in my mouth. I stood frozen a long time until, still laughing and chattering, the girls unfurled down to the ground and ran off to the swings.
My mother's anxiety about my social skills grew more acute the older I got. "By the time she was your age, Jenna had three boys fighting over her," she would say. "Why don't you ever go on dates?" Usually I would brush the question off and retreat to my room, but once I made the mistake of answering.
"I'm not as pretty as Jenna," I said, as though it needed saying.
"If you smiled you'd be more approachable." She put a hand on my arm. "Isn't there a boy you like?"
There was: Michael, a popular boy with creamy skin, roses in his cheeks, and dark brown eyes, a basketball player. I'd liked him since fourth grade. Unlike the other popular boys, he wasn't unkind to girls like me. Once in junior high when the bell rang, I left my pencil case on my desk, and he ran after me, shouting my name.
"You forgot this." He pressed the case into my hands. "It's nice. You wouldn't want to lose it." He was gone before I could thank him. But he knew my name. And he had cared enough to run after me. The next time I saw him, I wanted to speak to him but hadn't dared to.
"Well?" asked my mother. "There's no boy you like?"
I couldn't bring myself to utter his name, to break the magic spell of secrecy and expose my crush to the ordinary light of day. "Not really."
My mother withdrew her hand. "You're a cold fish," she said.
Tears rose to my eyes. I knew there was no use pleading my case, and before I could think of anything more to say, she turned and walked away. "I'm not," I whispered to the empty room.
I love that whisper sent out into the void. She is not. And her spirit will not be dimmed by rough treatment on the part of people who ought to love her. And--while we're on the subject of love. JANE features a splendid one. I have noted that, despite my love for the original book, I often have trouble with May-December romances, in which there is a large age gap between the two principal characters. But I was immediately and fully behind Jane and Nico. Nico is . . . well, Nico is hot. Yeah. You're going to love Nico. The rock star angle works exceedingly well and definitely adds a sexier tone to the novel as a whole. His history is nothing if not cringe-worthy and it is in turns painful and hilarious watching these two beings from different worlds interact. Their relationship is handled so simply and naturally that it somehow becomes its own entity, both echoing and extending the relationship that inspired it. I fell in love with them on their own merits, if you will. At times, my pulse raced for them. This book has the potential to be an excellent crossover novel as these two are old souls and their romance reflects that, enhanced as it is by the modern setting. Happily, the writing matches the characterization. Assured and smooth, I felt shored up by the words. How many books have you read where you already knew exactly what was going to happen, and yet they still held you spellbound? Because that's exactly what happened to me here. As with the best retellings, JANE will leave you utterly satisfied, and with a strong desire to pull out that old copy of and settle in for a nice, long visit with old friends.
November 27, 2010
Finally! The second book on my list of "Top five worst books I'll ever read." Actually, that was the only reason I finished the book. I just knew it belonged on the list.
Where to begin? Let's start with the cover. The cover is the only redeemable aspect of Jane. The characters, dialog, writing, and plot are dismal. As you can see, I said PLOT. Yes, Lindner took one of the most beloved plots in literature and found a way to make it ridiculous. How you may ask? Mr. Rochester, oh I'm sorry, I mean Nico Rathburn is a rock star hoping for a comeback. In this novel, his favorite word is the F word and one of his worst fears is that he may be seen as a soccer dad. Lindner also tries to convince the reader that the most unbelievable thing that could happen today is for a rock star to marry his 19 year old nanny. Really!!!!!
Here is some of the witty dialogue I told you about. Picture it. Jane was walking on the side of the road and Nico almost runs her over, but fortunately he spins out of control and just misses her. He is hurt, but still manages to get this gem of a remark out of his mouth, "Where could you be walking to all the way out here in the middle of nowhere? I suppose you're one of those fitness walkers." Oh, it burns!
I could say more, but I might start to hurt the author's feelings, so to all my friends, DON'T READ IT.
Where to begin? Let's start with the cover. The cover is the only redeemable aspect of Jane. The characters, dialog, writing, and plot are dismal. As you can see, I said PLOT. Yes, Lindner took one of the most beloved plots in literature and found a way to make it ridiculous. How you may ask? Mr. Rochester, oh I'm sorry, I mean Nico Rathburn is a rock star hoping for a comeback. In this novel, his favorite word is the F word and one of his worst fears is that he may be seen as a soccer dad. Lindner also tries to convince the reader that the most unbelievable thing that could happen today is for a rock star to marry his 19 year old nanny. Really!!!!!
Here is some of the witty dialogue I told you about. Picture it. Jane was walking on the side of the road and Nico almost runs her over, but fortunately he spins out of control and just misses her. He is hurt, but still manages to get this gem of a remark out of his mouth, "Where could you be walking to all the way out here in the middle of nowhere? I suppose you're one of those fitness walkers." Oh, it burns!
I could say more, but I might start to hurt the author's feelings, so to all my friends, DON'T READ IT.
June 9, 2023
1.5
I really did not enjoy this book, about 100 pages in I started flipping through it. It had the bones of the story of Jane Eyre, but lacked the beauty and weight of the original story. And for the record, Mr.Rochester would never have the occupation of a rock star.
I really did not enjoy this book, about 100 pages in I started flipping through it. It had the bones of the story of Jane Eyre, but lacked the beauty and weight of the original story. And for the record, Mr.Rochester would never have the occupation of a rock star.
October 30, 2016
I'm a huge Bronte fan and Jane Eyre is by far one of my all time favorite classics so I was excited to see an updated version of it and thought it would be so much fun.
Sadly, this didn't work for me at all. Jane and Rathburn had a weird relationship from the beginning and it felt very awkward and almost forced. Like we were lead to believe they cared for each other and yet, there really wasn't any evidence there of said feelings. Yes, I know Jane is very much reserved but even in the classic, you can "feel" her yearning and even though she is very leveled headed, very serious, are still very much there and very much real. I didn't feel any of that from this. at all and so the whole thing felt over done and very unbelievable. I am so sad too because I had high hopes and maybe that is where I went wrong in the first place, I just expected too much.
This isn't a bad story by any means and those that love the whole rocker theme of Rathburn might even like it, I just think this wasn't for me and I couldn't connect to any of the characters which made the rest of the story suffer and instead of wanting to read it, I more often than no, towards the end found myself scanning the pages and just wanting to be done with it.
Sadly, this didn't work for me at all. Jane and Rathburn had a weird relationship from the beginning and it felt very awkward and almost forced. Like we were lead to believe they cared for each other and yet, there really wasn't any evidence there of said feelings. Yes, I know Jane is very much reserved but even in the classic, you can "feel" her yearning and even though she is very leveled headed, very serious, are still very much there and very much real. I didn't feel any of that from this. at all and so the whole thing felt over done and very unbelievable. I am so sad too because I had high hopes and maybe that is where I went wrong in the first place, I just expected too much.
This isn't a bad story by any means and those that love the whole rocker theme of Rathburn might even like it, I just think this wasn't for me and I couldn't connect to any of the characters which made the rest of the story suffer and instead of wanting to read it, I more often than no, towards the end found myself scanning the pages and just wanting to be done with it.
September 1, 2010
Sitting in the lobby of Discriminating Nannies, Inc, Jane Moore never felt more different. She’d arrived in a suit jacket and pencil skirt from Goodwill and low heels. She wasn’t reading the latest issue of Instyle or People magazine or listening to her IPod. She wasn’t wearing trendy skinny jeans or ballet flats. Jane felt like an impostor. After her parents died leaving her nothing, she was forced to drop out of renown mostly female Sarah Lawrence university. Her sister ignores her; her brother is decidedly on his own, and Jane is left with no one or way of supporting herself. She would’ve never guessed however that her ignorance of popular culture makes her the perfect candidate for rocker Nico Rathburn’s nanny vacancy. While not a crazed fan, groupie, or fame seeker, Jane quickly finds Thornfield Park, her charge Maddy, and Nico himself, home. Whether all its residents will welcome her is another question.
I had so much untempered expectation for this book and little room for reservations. If I’d had any at all, Angie’s would’ve put them to rest. But on the other hand I thought shouldn’t I be worried that one of my favorite books introduced to me by my mother years ago may be ruined in the process? Really, so many things could go wrong! Instead I inexplicably knew Jane would be special, and it was. I dove right into it after finishing , and it still held up, it was that good. As with many retellings, the suspense is there from the first page when several questions are racing through your head. How will this well-known, beloved story and characters be portrayed? How will it be the same but different? Will the essence be lost or maintained yet manage to become its own entity? And comes off effortlessly successful on all counts. It’s amazingly faithful and brilliantly original. It serves as both an engaging introduction to Charlotte Bronte’s and a completely satisfying reinterpretation of the novel for old fans. has taught and cherished the novel for years and it definitely shows. Where I thought it may have the most problems � modernizing a nineteenth-century novel set in a patriarchal society where unmarried women had no rights � the adjustments were logical and intuitive, no stretches required.
I adored Jane. She was both Jane Moore and Jane Eyre at the same time. The reserve, the confidence, the dispassionate exterior; there was already something modern and timeless about the original character that is in this updated Jane. Portraying Mr. Rathburn as an established rocker on the verge of a comeback gave him the perfect past and lifestyle to fill the shoes of brooding, above-my-station Mr. Rochester. And no old, comeback rock star at that (think ancient Rolling Stones), but a youngish, hot musician who plays the guitar brilliantly, sings lead vocals, and writes all of his songs. I know, try not to swoon. Jane and Nico’s romance is modernized but essentially the same forbidden relationship of soul mates, and I loved them for them and not just because they were different versions of Jane and Rochester. Fairy tale and Pride and Prejudice type retellings may abound, but only a rare few are nearly flawless, and is one of them. It’s a lovely, entrancing novel that I didn’t want to leave my side long after I’d finished. Come October I will be buying my own copy and putting a few extra copies in the cart for all those potential and longtime Jane lovers I know.
I had so much untempered expectation for this book and little room for reservations. If I’d had any at all, Angie’s would’ve put them to rest. But on the other hand I thought shouldn’t I be worried that one of my favorite books introduced to me by my mother years ago may be ruined in the process? Really, so many things could go wrong! Instead I inexplicably knew Jane would be special, and it was. I dove right into it after finishing , and it still held up, it was that good. As with many retellings, the suspense is there from the first page when several questions are racing through your head. How will this well-known, beloved story and characters be portrayed? How will it be the same but different? Will the essence be lost or maintained yet manage to become its own entity? And comes off effortlessly successful on all counts. It’s amazingly faithful and brilliantly original. It serves as both an engaging introduction to Charlotte Bronte’s and a completely satisfying reinterpretation of the novel for old fans. has taught and cherished the novel for years and it definitely shows. Where I thought it may have the most problems � modernizing a nineteenth-century novel set in a patriarchal society where unmarried women had no rights � the adjustments were logical and intuitive, no stretches required.
I adored Jane. She was both Jane Moore and Jane Eyre at the same time. The reserve, the confidence, the dispassionate exterior; there was already something modern and timeless about the original character that is in this updated Jane. Portraying Mr. Rathburn as an established rocker on the verge of a comeback gave him the perfect past and lifestyle to fill the shoes of brooding, above-my-station Mr. Rochester. And no old, comeback rock star at that (think ancient Rolling Stones), but a youngish, hot musician who plays the guitar brilliantly, sings lead vocals, and writes all of his songs. I know, try not to swoon. Jane and Nico’s romance is modernized but essentially the same forbidden relationship of soul mates, and I loved them for them and not just because they were different versions of Jane and Rochester. Fairy tale and Pride and Prejudice type retellings may abound, but only a rare few are nearly flawless, and is one of them. It’s a lovely, entrancing novel that I didn’t want to leave my side long after I’d finished. Come October I will be buying my own copy and putting a few extra copies in the cart for all those potential and longtime Jane lovers I know.
November 1, 2011
For people who have read and loved Jane Eyre, who admire Jane for her strength of character, who fell in love with Mr. Rochester, and who sigh over the passion of their love: stay away from this book. You'll be very, very dissappointed.
April Lindner has attempted a modern retelling. In the Author's Note at the end, she wonders why there aren't more retellings of Jane Eyre, as there are of Pride and Prejudice. She doesn't say why this is something that Charlotte Bronte's fans should envy. She does mention the most obvious reason: the plot, which is perfectly reasonable in a 19th century context, makes no sense in a modern setting.
And herein lies the biggest problem with the book: it simply took the plot points from Jane Eyre and set them in 21st century, with almost no alterations. The Mad Woman in the Attic? Still in the attic. In the 19th century, this made total sense. There was no professional help to be had. But in the 21st century, to do exactly the same thing is bizarre and creepy. Poor Bibi (the not-Bertha) is apparently getting no professional help at all, aside from unspecified medication haphazardly given by a fairly careless and not at all professionally trained babysitter. Is the medication even appropriate for her condition? I'm willing to bet not, since I just don't trust these people. The attitude that getting professional help for mental illness is somehow bad is deadly, literally, and it turns out to be so in this book. In Jane Eyre, Bertha was without options. But Bibi has options, and they're withheld from her. And in my opinion, that's akin to murder, especially when the real reason is to avoid bad press.
Sadly, Jane Moore and Nico Rathburn are sad, pale imitations of Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. Jane Moore is timid, and painfully shy. Jane Eyre was never timid, she just had a sense of propriety that suited a young lady of her time. She was also very clever and able to stand up for herself. Jane Moore never tells off her mother, the way Jane Eyre told off her aunt when she was a child. The world is full of modern girls who are in the Jane Eyre mold, whether they realize it or not, but Jane Moore is not one of them. Nico Rathburn is a fading rock star. Why? I have no idea, other than that rock stars are sexy and so is Mr. Rochester. Mr. Rochester was a landed gentleman of means, and a modern American version would be heir to a hotel fortune, not a rock star. Aside from that, Nico is frequently inappropriate, selfish and most of all, creepy. I'll be the first to admit that Mr. Rochester could be a bit of a jerk sometimes, but he'd be appalled at Nico. And so am I. Mr. Rochester made me swoon, and Nico made my skin crawl.
But really, what's the point of these? I've never seen the appeal of modern versions of classic stories. My favorite classic, Les Miserables, has never been adapted, that I know of, and I'm incredibly grateful, especially after reading something like this.
April Lindner has attempted a modern retelling. In the Author's Note at the end, she wonders why there aren't more retellings of Jane Eyre, as there are of Pride and Prejudice. She doesn't say why this is something that Charlotte Bronte's fans should envy. She does mention the most obvious reason: the plot, which is perfectly reasonable in a 19th century context, makes no sense in a modern setting.
And herein lies the biggest problem with the book: it simply took the plot points from Jane Eyre and set them in 21st century, with almost no alterations. The Mad Woman in the Attic? Still in the attic. In the 19th century, this made total sense. There was no professional help to be had. But in the 21st century, to do exactly the same thing is bizarre and creepy. Poor Bibi (the not-Bertha) is apparently getting no professional help at all, aside from unspecified medication haphazardly given by a fairly careless and not at all professionally trained babysitter. Is the medication even appropriate for her condition? I'm willing to bet not, since I just don't trust these people. The attitude that getting professional help for mental illness is somehow bad is deadly, literally, and it turns out to be so in this book. In Jane Eyre, Bertha was without options. But Bibi has options, and they're withheld from her. And in my opinion, that's akin to murder, especially when the real reason is to avoid bad press.
Sadly, Jane Moore and Nico Rathburn are sad, pale imitations of Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. Jane Moore is timid, and painfully shy. Jane Eyre was never timid, she just had a sense of propriety that suited a young lady of her time. She was also very clever and able to stand up for herself. Jane Moore never tells off her mother, the way Jane Eyre told off her aunt when she was a child. The world is full of modern girls who are in the Jane Eyre mold, whether they realize it or not, but Jane Moore is not one of them. Nico Rathburn is a fading rock star. Why? I have no idea, other than that rock stars are sexy and so is Mr. Rochester. Mr. Rochester was a landed gentleman of means, and a modern American version would be heir to a hotel fortune, not a rock star. Aside from that, Nico is frequently inappropriate, selfish and most of all, creepy. I'll be the first to admit that Mr. Rochester could be a bit of a jerk sometimes, but he'd be appalled at Nico. And so am I. Mr. Rochester made me swoon, and Nico made my skin crawl.
But really, what's the point of these? I've never seen the appeal of modern versions of classic stories. My favorite classic, Les Miserables, has never been adapted, that I know of, and I'm incredibly grateful, especially after reading something like this.
January 31, 2011
You know how you love a classic? Not many, just a few that hit you in the gut and heart so hard that you can't breath? That's how I feel about Bronte's "Jane Eyre." It is my favorite!
I approached "Jane" by April Lindner with some trepidation and inside-my-head warnings to the author and narrator: DON'T disappoint me. DON'T stink. DON'T be cheesy. DO be delightful and creative and please tickle me a bit. Well, I can honestly say that Lindner's "Jane" did just that. The contemporary setting of a college drop out, Jane, and a superstar rock and roll GOD, Nico Rathbburn, seemed like the most unlikely match. And they are, just like Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. But do they come together? Yes! And does it work? Yes. And just like with Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, it's a bit of a fairy tale... The way Lindner follows the plot of Bronte's original in her own sparkling (remember, Rathburn is a rockstar!) manner was great. Jane's time in self-imposed exile from Thornfield Hall was fantastic and I liked the costars a bunch. However, I don't want to give anything else away. But I liked it. Of course, Bronte's Jane and Rochester will always and forever be #1. But this was fun.
I approached "Jane" by April Lindner with some trepidation and inside-my-head warnings to the author and narrator: DON'T disappoint me. DON'T stink. DON'T be cheesy. DO be delightful and creative and please tickle me a bit. Well, I can honestly say that Lindner's "Jane" did just that. The contemporary setting of a college drop out, Jane, and a superstar rock and roll GOD, Nico Rathbburn, seemed like the most unlikely match. And they are, just like Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. But do they come together? Yes! And does it work? Yes. And just like with Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, it's a bit of a fairy tale... The way Lindner follows the plot of Bronte's original in her own sparkling (remember, Rathburn is a rockstar!) manner was great. Jane's time in self-imposed exile from Thornfield Hall was fantastic and I liked the costars a bunch. However, I don't want to give anything else away. But I liked it. Of course, Bronte's Jane and Rochester will always and forever be #1. But this was fun.
September 16, 2010
There are 2 main reasons why this retelling didn't work as well as I'd hoped it would (and they are, of course, connected):
1. The story doesn't really work except as a vehicle for the Jane Eyre structure. As in: the plot makes sense in a world with Jane Eyre, but in a Jane Eyre-less world, it is flimsy.
2. The actual telling of the story is done in first person, so it's like Jane is telling someone about what happened to her, which ends up leaving the narrative as a sketch. Even though it is 375 pages long. Like a friend was recounting a vacation that you know was exciting, but hearing about it becomes boring because it goes like this: "we went to the gardens and they were so pretty! And then we ate at this restaurant and it was delicious. I had a salad. The next day we ..."
What I mean is that there's a certain inevitability to the plot, because the plot was already written by Charlotte Bronte, and I could feel Linder taking the elements of the plot and slotting her updates in, but not refreshing the plot very much. So that the inevitability became staleness.
3. This relates to #1... the whole St. John thing is weirdly distanced from the real world. I feel like Jane Eyre could refuse St. John because living was harder back then, in general. But Jane Moore refuses River St. John and her life helping the homeless and caring about Haiti without much back-and-forth. Sure, she mentions that in her life with Nico they are going to put on benefits for Haiti, but she doesn't seem very affected by the people she's met. I wanted more of that experience, more growth from Jane. And she says that her job as a grant writer became boring after a couple weeks. Grant-writing is HARD! A 19 year old who had to drop out of college would have a steeper learning curve, methinks.
On the same un-researched tip, there's supposed to be a documentary about Nico and his band, and it is described as though it were an installment of VH1's Behind the Music. Documentaries of bands, unlike historical documentaires, actually are composed of things filmed as events are happening, (see: Some Kind of Monster) and thus would not be a series of boring talking heads.
IN SHORT, although I was frustrated by this retelling, I still wanted to finish it... but I mostly ended up wanting to re-read Jane Eyre.
1. The story doesn't really work except as a vehicle for the Jane Eyre structure. As in: the plot makes sense in a world with Jane Eyre, but in a Jane Eyre-less world, it is flimsy.
2. The actual telling of the story is done in first person, so it's like Jane is telling someone about what happened to her, which ends up leaving the narrative as a sketch. Even though it is 375 pages long. Like a friend was recounting a vacation that you know was exciting, but hearing about it becomes boring because it goes like this: "we went to the gardens and they were so pretty! And then we ate at this restaurant and it was delicious. I had a salad. The next day we ..."
What I mean is that there's a certain inevitability to the plot, because the plot was already written by Charlotte Bronte, and I could feel Linder taking the elements of the plot and slotting her updates in, but not refreshing the plot very much. So that the inevitability became staleness.
3. This relates to #1... the whole St. John thing is weirdly distanced from the real world. I feel like Jane Eyre could refuse St. John because living was harder back then, in general. But Jane Moore refuses River St. John and her life helping the homeless and caring about Haiti without much back-and-forth. Sure, she mentions that in her life with Nico they are going to put on benefits for Haiti, but she doesn't seem very affected by the people she's met. I wanted more of that experience, more growth from Jane. And she says that her job as a grant writer became boring after a couple weeks. Grant-writing is HARD! A 19 year old who had to drop out of college would have a steeper learning curve, methinks.
On the same un-researched tip, there's supposed to be a documentary about Nico and his band, and it is described as though it were an installment of VH1's Behind the Music. Documentaries of bands, unlike historical documentaires, actually are composed of things filmed as events are happening, (see: Some Kind of Monster) and thus would not be a series of boring talking heads.
IN SHORT, although I was frustrated by this retelling, I still wanted to finish it... but I mostly ended up wanting to re-read Jane Eyre.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 30, 2011
This book was amazing! I was blown away.
I absolutely loved the original Jane Eyre so I was a little skeptical when I first heard of this book. Mr. Rochester a rock star?! But trust me, this modern update does not disappoint!
I hope nobody wants to shoot me for saying this but I think I liked this better than the original. I highly recommend this book!
I absolutely loved the original Jane Eyre so I was a little skeptical when I first heard of this book. Mr. Rochester a rock star?! But trust me, this modern update does not disappoint!
I hope nobody wants to shoot me for saying this but I think I liked this better than the original. I highly recommend this book!
August 18, 2012
I got this book with a rather hopefull heart; I generally love new twists on old tales. And plus, it was less than ten dollars for more than 300 pages, which is really rare now-a-days. However, I was sadly dissappointed by this book. I love Jane Eyre. I just love it! It's just such a rich, complex, beautiful tale, about so many more issues than just love. But I feel like this modern take just drained it of all its unique, interesting aspects and left it only a shell of a story, just another yucky modern romances about two people randomnly falling in love.
First, I feel like Linder didn't give us the full sweeping picture about what made Jane the way she was. Let's be honest, no one really likes reading the first chunk of Jane Eyre; it's not that pleasant and so on. But it gives us a deep connection with Jane, a deep sympathy, and a natural knowledge of her progress and how her experiences made her who she was. Linder gives us flashes, but they really only show us a few miserable memories and don't show how they strenghtened her, made her good, and taught her both what love did and did not act like, what wisdom was and wasn't. And because her experiences were more of bad memories than vital learning experiences, we have no idea where Jane's goodness came from when she IS good in Jane. Her past just doesn't make sense with who she is now. We just don't GET Jane in this version of Jane.
Secondly, we don't get a really good picture of the Rochester-character in this story. I guess in a weird way, Linder wasn't consistent in his, well, inconsitency. I just didn't feel drawn to him, so deeply interested in his strange character, so desperate for their happy ending in this book. I wasn't captivated by their conversations; I didn't feel the connection between them.
Also, I'm a relatively young reader and generally really enjoy all ages of fiction, but I was really disappointed that this story involved sex, not only because of my age and convictions but also because it wrecked the innocence of tale, the strong character and self-control that makes the ending so beautiful and satisfying in the original Jane Eyre. Where is the role model? Where is the Jane who inspires us to be better people? It seems her character (arguably the pivotal point of the book) was sold to people-please modern readers. All I can say is, what on earth? I was already not really feeling the deep connection of love between them (it seemed more like they just decided "hey, let's try being in love!" than actually truly loving the other person without even intending too, like in Bronte's.) Them going to far just pushed the story over the deep end. The beauty of love was not there; the importance of Jane's character was not there; it felt like just an animal-attraction, the effects of chemicals, not the life-changing heart rendering love Jane Eyre captures so well.
Ultimately, I got the feeling that this was just another tale about an obsesively dependent relationship between a bad boy and his newest phase. However, there are a few things I will congratulate this book for. Linder did actually better than Bronte, I think, in her portrayal of the governess/nanny aspect, especially in her development of the pupil, maddie (Adele in J.E.). She makes the girl so appealing to read about, and uses her to give us a better picture of (Rochester)Rathburn's real character. And second, I will say that she made it suspenseful/interesting enough to make one want to keep reading. And thirdly, I was proud of Linder's creativity in connecting/modernizing all the aspects of the old Jane Eyre. I can't think of any aspect/scene of the story she left out.
Putting aside the watery characters and the gray, drab atmosphere, Linder just didn't seem to capture the unique, fascinating, utter depth of story you find in Bronte's Jane Eyre. It was an all right story for now-a-days, maybe not one that makes you want to leap for joy and never put it down, but an all right one, maybe worth reading if you are in need/flexible about books. But if you have read Jane Eyre and you really get it, and are a true fan, this book is not one you'll want to read, unless you enjoy being indignant and unsatisfied.
I can't help sighing heavily right now. I had high hopes that this was going to be a spectacular book. :(
First, I feel like Linder didn't give us the full sweeping picture about what made Jane the way she was. Let's be honest, no one really likes reading the first chunk of Jane Eyre; it's not that pleasant and so on. But it gives us a deep connection with Jane, a deep sympathy, and a natural knowledge of her progress and how her experiences made her who she was. Linder gives us flashes, but they really only show us a few miserable memories and don't show how they strenghtened her, made her good, and taught her both what love did and did not act like, what wisdom was and wasn't. And because her experiences were more of bad memories than vital learning experiences, we have no idea where Jane's goodness came from when she IS good in Jane. Her past just doesn't make sense with who she is now. We just don't GET Jane in this version of Jane.
Secondly, we don't get a really good picture of the Rochester-character in this story. I guess in a weird way, Linder wasn't consistent in his, well, inconsitency. I just didn't feel drawn to him, so deeply interested in his strange character, so desperate for their happy ending in this book. I wasn't captivated by their conversations; I didn't feel the connection between them.
Also, I'm a relatively young reader and generally really enjoy all ages of fiction, but I was really disappointed that this story involved sex, not only because of my age and convictions but also because it wrecked the innocence of tale, the strong character and self-control that makes the ending so beautiful and satisfying in the original Jane Eyre. Where is the role model? Where is the Jane who inspires us to be better people? It seems her character (arguably the pivotal point of the book) was sold to people-please modern readers. All I can say is, what on earth? I was already not really feeling the deep connection of love between them (it seemed more like they just decided "hey, let's try being in love!" than actually truly loving the other person without even intending too, like in Bronte's.) Them going to far just pushed the story over the deep end. The beauty of love was not there; the importance of Jane's character was not there; it felt like just an animal-attraction, the effects of chemicals, not the life-changing heart rendering love Jane Eyre captures so well.
Ultimately, I got the feeling that this was just another tale about an obsesively dependent relationship between a bad boy and his newest phase. However, there are a few things I will congratulate this book for. Linder did actually better than Bronte, I think, in her portrayal of the governess/nanny aspect, especially in her development of the pupil, maddie (Adele in J.E.). She makes the girl so appealing to read about, and uses her to give us a better picture of (Rochester)Rathburn's real character. And second, I will say that she made it suspenseful/interesting enough to make one want to keep reading. And thirdly, I was proud of Linder's creativity in connecting/modernizing all the aspects of the old Jane Eyre. I can't think of any aspect/scene of the story she left out.
Putting aside the watery characters and the gray, drab atmosphere, Linder just didn't seem to capture the unique, fascinating, utter depth of story you find in Bronte's Jane Eyre. It was an all right story for now-a-days, maybe not one that makes you want to leap for joy and never put it down, but an all right one, maybe worth reading if you are in need/flexible about books. But if you have read Jane Eyre and you really get it, and are a true fan, this book is not one you'll want to read, unless you enjoy being indignant and unsatisfied.
I can't help sighing heavily right now. I had high hopes that this was going to be a spectacular book. :(
October 6, 2010
So, I have to start off with a confession: I have never read Jane Eyre. I know, know #englishmajorfail #librarianfail, but I'm not unfamiliar with the story of Jane Eyre. I've...seen the movie?! Ok, I know, you're rolling your eyes! Does it help that it was the newest Masterpiece Theater version of Jane Erye? No? Well fine. But keep in mind that, although I haven't read Jane Eyre, I do know the story and I LOVED the version I saw.
With that confession out of the way I have to admit, this book did not work for me. At all. Lindner stuck close to the storyline, however I felt this modern translation failed for the following reasons:
Jane. Our heroine did not translate well into the modern world. Whereas in the original story Jane is this stead fast, level headed heroine, our Jane, who also had these same traits was just so...flat. I found her boring and uninteresting, I wanted to admire her and her strong will to survive anything but mostly, she bored me. It wasn't until she left Thornfield Park and she moves in with the St. John family, around page 286 that I really got interested.
No chemistry. I did not buy Jane's feelings for Nico, nor his for her. The whole romance felt flat. That makes it difficult when this is supposed to be such a romantic story. Also the whole younger girl with the older guy, felt a little pervy, whereas the original felt realistic and appropriate for the time period.
Nico. I felt he was a poor substitute for Edward Rochester who was a surly, mysterious, tormented individual. Nico Rathburn, on the other hand, came off as hot headed, controlling, and devious. I also did not buy into his feelings or interest in Jane.
Long. Now, I don't have anything against long novels. But there were huge chunks of text that I felt were just Jane droning on. There was a lot of telling going on and not enough showing or doing. By the last 50 pages or so I just wanted it to be over.
I used this adjective several times in this review and I feel it pretty much sums up how I felt about the book: flat. I think this attempt to modernize the story failed. Read the original, hell rent the Masterpiece Theater version, but I'd skip this one.
With that confession out of the way I have to admit, this book did not work for me. At all. Lindner stuck close to the storyline, however I felt this modern translation failed for the following reasons:
Jane. Our heroine did not translate well into the modern world. Whereas in the original story Jane is this stead fast, level headed heroine, our Jane, who also had these same traits was just so...flat. I found her boring and uninteresting, I wanted to admire her and her strong will to survive anything but mostly, she bored me. It wasn't until she left Thornfield Park and she moves in with the St. John family, around page 286 that I really got interested.
No chemistry. I did not buy Jane's feelings for Nico, nor his for her. The whole romance felt flat. That makes it difficult when this is supposed to be such a romantic story. Also the whole younger girl with the older guy, felt a little pervy, whereas the original felt realistic and appropriate for the time period.
Nico. I felt he was a poor substitute for Edward Rochester who was a surly, mysterious, tormented individual. Nico Rathburn, on the other hand, came off as hot headed, controlling, and devious. I also did not buy into his feelings or interest in Jane.
Long. Now, I don't have anything against long novels. But there were huge chunks of text that I felt were just Jane droning on. There was a lot of telling going on and not enough showing or doing. By the last 50 pages or so I just wanted it to be over.
I used this adjective several times in this review and I feel it pretty much sums up how I felt about the book: flat. I think this attempt to modernize the story failed. Read the original, hell rent the Masterpiece Theater version, but I'd skip this one.
August 4, 2011
I loved this book. Loved it more than any book since Revolution by Jennifer Donnelly. I devoured it and was sad when it was over. But why?
Well, it is a revision of Jane Eyre, which I adore, and it does a better job with the portion of Jane Eyre I hate (her time after leaving Rochester) but there was something more to it.
The characters are incredibly compelling. Jane makes sense. Her reasons for staying in the shadows and for falling so quickly in love with Rothburn make sense-- a child who had so little attention would be thrilled by it when she got it. Maddy, the book's version of Adele, is a cute, realistic child. The secondary characters are pretty well painted.
Also the world of the rock star is well-conveyed. Of course, having read Jane Eyre, when Jane is pulled into it I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. Still, I thought it was wonderfully well done. I liked that Jane stayed true to character, and was very focused on keeping the family together after she married Rothburn. This is why I was a tad disappointed in the ending. I understood while the epilogue feeling of Jane Eyre's ending was cut, but I would have liked to see Maddy again.
Do you need to have read Jane Eyre to appreciate this book? The voice is much closer to that book than to your typical YA-- and so well painted. I would have loved it before I read Jane Eyre and there must be teenagers like me out there. In a literary theory POV, you miss a layer having not read it. Still, I'd recommend the book either way.
Love, love, love.
Originally posted as a Book Musing on my blog
Well, it is a revision of Jane Eyre, which I adore, and it does a better job with the portion of Jane Eyre I hate (her time after leaving Rochester) but there was something more to it.
The characters are incredibly compelling. Jane makes sense. Her reasons for staying in the shadows and for falling so quickly in love with Rothburn make sense-- a child who had so little attention would be thrilled by it when she got it. Maddy, the book's version of Adele, is a cute, realistic child. The secondary characters are pretty well painted.
Also the world of the rock star is well-conveyed. Of course, having read Jane Eyre, when Jane is pulled into it I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. Still, I thought it was wonderfully well done. I liked that Jane stayed true to character, and was very focused on keeping the family together after she married Rothburn. This is why I was a tad disappointed in the ending. I understood while the epilogue feeling of Jane Eyre's ending was cut, but I would have liked to see Maddy again.
Do you need to have read Jane Eyre to appreciate this book? The voice is much closer to that book than to your typical YA-- and so well painted. I would have loved it before I read Jane Eyre and there must be teenagers like me out there. In a literary theory POV, you miss a layer having not read it. Still, I'd recommend the book either way.
Love, love, love.
Originally posted as a Book Musing on my blog
November 18, 2010
What a fabulous book! I read it in less than a day because I simply couldn't put it down! In her Author's Note, Lindner comments that there seems to be so many Jane Austen sequels and retellings and such about, but why no love for the Brontes? And I agree! I am the hugest fan of Jane Eyre, and so excited to see it get a modern treatment . . . because this modern treatment is done in such a lovely way! It's the perfect balance between the original elements of the story and her own new interpretation.
This Jane is hard up for tuition money after her parents' death, and seeks a position as a nanny. Because she is so unworldly, she scores a plum spot as the nanny for the illegitimate daughter of . . . a rock star! Ingenious! So instead of worrying about class distinctions, you have the strain of someone completely unglamorous in love with someone who dates supermodels. Jane hates wearing make up and doesn't even know how to walk in heels. She's utterly adorable, and so is her jaded rocker of an employer. I would have married him in an instant, the sexy beast! And little Madeline, his daughter, is a darling little thing, with a pink-on-pink room and wardrobe to match. I loved the new elements Lindner brought to it, like the rock lifestyle, the public spotlight haunting their relationship, and the reason behind his "secret", it was just well done all around.
This Jane is hard up for tuition money after her parents' death, and seeks a position as a nanny. Because she is so unworldly, she scores a plum spot as the nanny for the illegitimate daughter of . . . a rock star! Ingenious! So instead of worrying about class distinctions, you have the strain of someone completely unglamorous in love with someone who dates supermodels. Jane hates wearing make up and doesn't even know how to walk in heels. She's utterly adorable, and so is her jaded rocker of an employer. I would have married him in an instant, the sexy beast! And little Madeline, his daughter, is a darling little thing, with a pink-on-pink room and wardrobe to match. I loved the new elements Lindner brought to it, like the rock lifestyle, the public spotlight haunting their relationship, and the reason behind his "secret", it was just well done all around.
November 20, 2012
Are you looking for a modern take on a classic tale minus zombies or vampires? Friend, I think Jane by April Lindner is the book for you. To me, Jane was a worthy version of Jane Eyre. I absolutely loved this re-telling. In this version, Jane Eyre is now Jane Moore, a 19 year old who must drop out of college due to financial necessity. She accepts a job nannying for aging rocker, Nico Rathburn. What results is a quiet romance, never overt, but gently unfolding. ALSO omfg, DEVELOPMENT. It's not this over night instant attraction, but something which happens realistically. Something that grows into love.
July 2, 2011
Terrible, just embarrassingly awful. I threw in the towel after 162 pages of hoping things would improve.
I truly thought that this one had potential to be maybe not life-changing, but at least thoroughly entertaining. I loved the idea of it. Sadly, Jane has no Jane in her, and Rathburn comes off as a creep, and not a very intelligent one. HOW can it be possible to so thoroughly screw up a story that is adapted nearly scene for scene? If Charlotte Bronte weren't already dead, I'm sure this would finish her.
I truly thought that this one had potential to be maybe not life-changing, but at least thoroughly entertaining. I loved the idea of it. Sadly, Jane has no Jane in her, and Rathburn comes off as a creep, and not a very intelligent one. HOW can it be possible to so thoroughly screw up a story that is adapted nearly scene for scene? If Charlotte Bronte weren't already dead, I'm sure this would finish her.
December 1, 2013
Modern retelling of Jane Eyre. I'm so familiar with the source material I found myself more interested in seeing what tricks the author would use to adapt each scene to a modern setting then anything else. In the end, I feel both Jane and Rochester's characters suffer from the temporal transition, Rochester is too cruel and Jane too lacking in agency when they are taken out of the confines of a British hierarchical class system. In the end, it just made me want to reread The Eyre Affair.
August 24, 2011
A bit dull.
August 8, 2024
3.75/5 this book was kind of weird but I liked it. I wasn’t attached to the characters but I was interested the whole time and wanted to know what happened next. Definitely want to read Jane Eyre now.
April 29, 2014
When it comes to JANE, I find it difficult to summon much feeling for this modern re-telling of Jane Eyre.
You see, Jane Eyre is the novel that cemented my relationship with my mother. We'd always been close, but during those awkward, teenage years of Middle School, I slowly began to gravitate away from her opinion, discovering my own instead. Needless to say, our relationship was strained, but that all changed -- surprisingly -- when I picked up my mother's well-worn copy of Jane Eyre from the recesses of our dusty attic. Jane Eyre is my mother's absolute favorite novel. Not only can she quote from it seamlessly, but her passion for the story pours out, even from the pages of the copy she has carried with her from India. Thus, to read Jane Eyre at fourteen, carrying with it my memories of late-night book discussions with my mother, is to render it a novel close to my heart.
With JANE, April Lindner certainly writes a respectable re-telling. It sticks closely to the original tale, with Jane Moore taking up a position as a nanny in the house of former rockstar, Nico Rathburn, following her parents' tragic death. Jane Moore's childhood hasn't been any easier than Jane Eyre's, complete with a cruel mother and even crueler siblings. Even following her entrance into Nico Rathburn's life, Jane Moore's life is similar to that of Jane Eyre's. Whether it be her passion for painting, quiet demeanor, or straightforward aura which catches the eye of Nico Rathburn and draws them together into a tight friendship, Lindner refuses to gloss over or forget these details. The flashy Bianca Ingram, the startling fire, the mysterious third floor...it's all present in JANE, though with a modern twist, as befits a re-telling.
Yet, despite these stellar qualities, JANE lacks the true spirit of Bronte's Jane Eyre. Jane Eyre's story is tragic, difficult, and tough to swallow but Jane's constant strength of will drives both her -- and the reader -- forward through hardship. Jane Moore, on the other hand, bitterly reflects upon her past in flashbacks which did little but connect this tale back to the original. Jane Moore's recollections of her family lack the underlying current of strength that is present in Jane Eyre's experience with her family. While we read -- and struggled -- alongside Jane Eyre as she was sent from her home to boarding school and later left to fend on her own, with Jane Moore we are merely given glimpses into the difficult childhood she suffered and told she made it through. Even in her present-day relationships, Jane Moore fails to strike much of a cord. JANE certainly captures the bare-bones of Bronte's complex characterization, but without filling in that skeletal structure with muscle, tissue, and pumping blood, Jane Moore merely remains a character on the page where Jane Eyre could just as easily have been my sister.
Nevertheless, perhaps my largest roadblock with JANE arrived in the form of Nico Rathburn. Rathburn? When I was eight, I would voraciously watch Arthur, a fellow third-grader who often suffered under the ministrations of his no-nonsense and "evil" teacher, Mr. Ratburn. Unfortunately, every time Jane Moore addressed Nico as Mr. Rathburn, I thought of a rat. (Rest assured, I quickly grew accustomed to thinking of this sexy rockstar as a human, not a rodent, but...it was difficult.) Nico's name aside, I found myself unimpressed with his rockstar occupation. While it provides fertile ground upon which to build Edward Rochester's dark past, not to mention his current lifestyle in a modern-day setting, I found the charisma of Nico to dull the rougher edges of Mr. Rochester which I'd grown to love. JANE utterly impressed me by rendered Nico a flawed -- very much so -- hero, not to mention the fact that I couldn't help but lean in closer, falling in love with Nico and Jane's conversations, but Mr. Rochester is a whole other level of dark, brooding, and swoon that Nico Rathburn is not, I'm afraid.
JANE is, I believe, the only modern-day adaptation of Jane Eyre I've stumbled across and, as such, it certainly plays homage to the original. I believe YA lovers of JANE will certainly pick up Bronte's masterpiece, which is an incredible feat to pull off. Lindner has cleverly woven in the historic details of Jane Eyre into the 21st Century and though aspects of her plot feel contrived, false to our dynasty, and the atmosphere she builds is far from the creeping gothic aroma behind Jane Eyre, I still flew through JANE, soaking up its every word. Granted, it's a poor substitute for the original, but every now and again even we lovers of classics need a break from the lengthy, wordy originals we stack on our shelves. And for those days, JANE is absolutely perfect.
You see, Jane Eyre is the novel that cemented my relationship with my mother. We'd always been close, but during those awkward, teenage years of Middle School, I slowly began to gravitate away from her opinion, discovering my own instead. Needless to say, our relationship was strained, but that all changed -- surprisingly -- when I picked up my mother's well-worn copy of Jane Eyre from the recesses of our dusty attic. Jane Eyre is my mother's absolute favorite novel. Not only can she quote from it seamlessly, but her passion for the story pours out, even from the pages of the copy she has carried with her from India. Thus, to read Jane Eyre at fourteen, carrying with it my memories of late-night book discussions with my mother, is to render it a novel close to my heart.
With JANE, April Lindner certainly writes a respectable re-telling. It sticks closely to the original tale, with Jane Moore taking up a position as a nanny in the house of former rockstar, Nico Rathburn, following her parents' tragic death. Jane Moore's childhood hasn't been any easier than Jane Eyre's, complete with a cruel mother and even crueler siblings. Even following her entrance into Nico Rathburn's life, Jane Moore's life is similar to that of Jane Eyre's. Whether it be her passion for painting, quiet demeanor, or straightforward aura which catches the eye of Nico Rathburn and draws them together into a tight friendship, Lindner refuses to gloss over or forget these details. The flashy Bianca Ingram, the startling fire, the mysterious third floor...it's all present in JANE, though with a modern twist, as befits a re-telling.
Yet, despite these stellar qualities, JANE lacks the true spirit of Bronte's Jane Eyre. Jane Eyre's story is tragic, difficult, and tough to swallow but Jane's constant strength of will drives both her -- and the reader -- forward through hardship. Jane Moore, on the other hand, bitterly reflects upon her past in flashbacks which did little but connect this tale back to the original. Jane Moore's recollections of her family lack the underlying current of strength that is present in Jane Eyre's experience with her family. While we read -- and struggled -- alongside Jane Eyre as she was sent from her home to boarding school and later left to fend on her own, with Jane Moore we are merely given glimpses into the difficult childhood she suffered and told she made it through. Even in her present-day relationships, Jane Moore fails to strike much of a cord. JANE certainly captures the bare-bones of Bronte's complex characterization, but without filling in that skeletal structure with muscle, tissue, and pumping blood, Jane Moore merely remains a character on the page where Jane Eyre could just as easily have been my sister.
Nevertheless, perhaps my largest roadblock with JANE arrived in the form of Nico Rathburn. Rathburn? When I was eight, I would voraciously watch Arthur, a fellow third-grader who often suffered under the ministrations of his no-nonsense and "evil" teacher, Mr. Ratburn. Unfortunately, every time Jane Moore addressed Nico as Mr. Rathburn, I thought of a rat. (Rest assured, I quickly grew accustomed to thinking of this sexy rockstar as a human, not a rodent, but...it was difficult.) Nico's name aside, I found myself unimpressed with his rockstar occupation. While it provides fertile ground upon which to build Edward Rochester's dark past, not to mention his current lifestyle in a modern-day setting, I found the charisma of Nico to dull the rougher edges of Mr. Rochester which I'd grown to love. JANE utterly impressed me by rendered Nico a flawed -- very much so -- hero, not to mention the fact that I couldn't help but lean in closer, falling in love with Nico and Jane's conversations, but Mr. Rochester is a whole other level of dark, brooding, and swoon that Nico Rathburn is not, I'm afraid.
JANE is, I believe, the only modern-day adaptation of Jane Eyre I've stumbled across and, as such, it certainly plays homage to the original. I believe YA lovers of JANE will certainly pick up Bronte's masterpiece, which is an incredible feat to pull off. Lindner has cleverly woven in the historic details of Jane Eyre into the 21st Century and though aspects of her plot feel contrived, false to our dynasty, and the atmosphere she builds is far from the creeping gothic aroma behind Jane Eyre, I still flew through JANE, soaking up its every word. Granted, it's a poor substitute for the original, but every now and again even we lovers of classics need a break from the lengthy, wordy originals we stack on our shelves. And for those days, JANE is absolutely perfect.
April 14, 2011
Let me start by saying this is my first ever “updated� version of a classic I have ever read. Let me also so that there is perhaps no other book that speaks to me the way Jane Eyre does. I have read it numerous times now and each time it’s like conversing with an old friend � a kindred spirit. I love Charlotte Bronte. I have read most of her novels and various biographies. I understand from what place she wrote.
That said when I saw there was a modern retelling of Jane Eyre I couldn’t help but rush out, purchase, and read it. The author is a poet. She is an English professor. And she claims to be a Jane Eyre fan. I did not see any of these aspects reflected in this cheap knock-off. I was so disappointed.
At its heart the story of Jane Eyre is so much more than a love story. And what this author has succeeded in doing is striping away all of the complexity that made Jane Eyre who she was and replaced it with an unbelievable and unattractive romance. Jane Eyre was a pitiable soul. Before leaving for school she was wholly unloved. Her parents were rejected and in kind she was rejected. In spite of this she was still strong in who she was. The Jane of this story comes across as a simpering child, with a “woe-is-me,� “I deserve so much more than my parents afforded me� attitude. Let’s face it. No nineteen year old girl is 100% satisfied with her relationship with her mother. Every 19 year old deals with sibling issues. The little back story we do get of this new Jane does not make one wonder “How could she ever learn to love and to receive love?� but rather “How can she not see how she has been loved?� So her parents treated her siblings better. Build a bridge.
Again in the original we have this poor soul who has never been shown anything more than pity brought to a school run by a masochistic tyrant. But we also have Helen Burns. Of which there is no similar character in the new version. But if the only point is to show that a mousy teen can bed a rock star, what would be the point in having a character that teaches the protagonist what it truly means to love and be loved? There are vague mentions of friends in the new Jane’s past. She mentions a past roommate. And going to Sarah Lawrence? This is not something real Jane would have been afforded. Miss Temple treated Jane with respect and concern, but still she was not loved like family.
While real Jane is always on the outside, always at a distance, never fully accepted; the new Jane keeps herself on the outside, distanced herself, and (it came across to me) did not want to be accepted. The party that alights upon Thornfield in Jane Eyre is reproachful of Jane. No one accepts her, let alone cares for her and includes her. The new Jane, though, is the one that keeps away from a group that the author has created to be quite inviting and accepting.
And poor Mr. Rochester. We don’t get any of his backstory in this new version either. He is not the failed man who couldn’t even use marriage to appease his rich father and successful brother. He, too, comes off as simpering. He is so stereotyped it’s laughable. There is no real angst, barely hints of regret. And little compassion. While the real Rochester is shown (through actions really) to have a soft spot for the pitiable (i.e. taking in Adele when he knows she’s not his real daughter), the new Rathburn is seen at best as fulfilling his duties, and quite begrudgingly at that. The relationship between Jane and Rochester is slow and builds out of companionship and respect. They are both intelligent people, full of passion and fire. The new Jane and Rathburn seem to have the personalities and passions of pasta. The only reason I can understand them to get together is a lust and lack of motivation to bother with anyone else. “Well, you’re here so I might as well #$%^ you�. Even in the end the story left me wondering why they bothered getting together. If this version were to have an epilogue it would probably be something like: Rathburn recovered from his injuries and went on to more and more success and grew more and more pig-headed. Jane got a bunch of plastic surgery and left Rathburn for a young model or actor. Maddy grew up to be just like her mom. Nobody really learned what it is like to truly love and be loved. The end.
(p.s. there is so much more I could have said, but there are a number of other good reviews that cover other atrocities of this book, so I am keeping this to one aspect of what makes this a terrible terrible book)
That said when I saw there was a modern retelling of Jane Eyre I couldn’t help but rush out, purchase, and read it. The author is a poet. She is an English professor. And she claims to be a Jane Eyre fan. I did not see any of these aspects reflected in this cheap knock-off. I was so disappointed.
At its heart the story of Jane Eyre is so much more than a love story. And what this author has succeeded in doing is striping away all of the complexity that made Jane Eyre who she was and replaced it with an unbelievable and unattractive romance. Jane Eyre was a pitiable soul. Before leaving for school she was wholly unloved. Her parents were rejected and in kind she was rejected. In spite of this she was still strong in who she was. The Jane of this story comes across as a simpering child, with a “woe-is-me,� “I deserve so much more than my parents afforded me� attitude. Let’s face it. No nineteen year old girl is 100% satisfied with her relationship with her mother. Every 19 year old deals with sibling issues. The little back story we do get of this new Jane does not make one wonder “How could she ever learn to love and to receive love?� but rather “How can she not see how she has been loved?� So her parents treated her siblings better. Build a bridge.
Again in the original we have this poor soul who has never been shown anything more than pity brought to a school run by a masochistic tyrant. But we also have Helen Burns. Of which there is no similar character in the new version. But if the only point is to show that a mousy teen can bed a rock star, what would be the point in having a character that teaches the protagonist what it truly means to love and be loved? There are vague mentions of friends in the new Jane’s past. She mentions a past roommate. And going to Sarah Lawrence? This is not something real Jane would have been afforded. Miss Temple treated Jane with respect and concern, but still she was not loved like family.
While real Jane is always on the outside, always at a distance, never fully accepted; the new Jane keeps herself on the outside, distanced herself, and (it came across to me) did not want to be accepted. The party that alights upon Thornfield in Jane Eyre is reproachful of Jane. No one accepts her, let alone cares for her and includes her. The new Jane, though, is the one that keeps away from a group that the author has created to be quite inviting and accepting.
And poor Mr. Rochester. We don’t get any of his backstory in this new version either. He is not the failed man who couldn’t even use marriage to appease his rich father and successful brother. He, too, comes off as simpering. He is so stereotyped it’s laughable. There is no real angst, barely hints of regret. And little compassion. While the real Rochester is shown (through actions really) to have a soft spot for the pitiable (i.e. taking in Adele when he knows she’s not his real daughter), the new Rathburn is seen at best as fulfilling his duties, and quite begrudgingly at that. The relationship between Jane and Rochester is slow and builds out of companionship and respect. They are both intelligent people, full of passion and fire. The new Jane and Rathburn seem to have the personalities and passions of pasta. The only reason I can understand them to get together is a lust and lack of motivation to bother with anyone else. “Well, you’re here so I might as well #$%^ you�. Even in the end the story left me wondering why they bothered getting together. If this version were to have an epilogue it would probably be something like: Rathburn recovered from his injuries and went on to more and more success and grew more and more pig-headed. Jane got a bunch of plastic surgery and left Rathburn for a young model or actor. Maddy grew up to be just like her mom. Nobody really learned what it is like to truly love and be loved. The end.
(p.s. there is so much more I could have said, but there are a number of other good reviews that cover other atrocities of this book, so I am keeping this to one aspect of what makes this a terrible terrible book)
January 2, 2011
On one hand, I think writing a modern version of Jane Eyre, one of my favorite classic novels, is clever--but on the other hand this rendition didn't work for me on a lot of levels.
In fairness, April Lindner has managed to condense Jane Eyre by hundreds of pages and has dared to do something most writers would never attempt: rewrite a book about what happens when societal expectations and personal moral/religious conviction clash so that it takes place in the 21st century with two protagonists who are neither religious nor moral.
She does this by instilling Jane with an arbitrary stubborn streak to replace the moral stubbornness possessed by Bronte's Jane. And by giving Mr. Rathburn a guilt complex in regards to his wife to replace the societal laws that kept the original Mr. Rochester from divorcing his wife in Bronte's version. I give props to April Lindner for finding a way to twist things around so there is still a conflict based on the original story. She is strikingly faithful to the plot line in every other respect. There are all the same fires, similar cruel relatives, the exact same love triangle, and names of characters are only altered slightly from the original. And yet, for me it falls flat, and these are the reasons why.
1.) The age difference between the protagonists that worked in the society that Jane Eyre lived in comes across as creepy and kind of gross in a modern world.
2.) Jane’s reserved manner, though believable in Bronte’s time, doesn’t ring true to a modern girl. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there aren’t shy girls in modern society. But in Bronte’s time a girl like Jane might be valued for her meekness and modesty for religious reasons, where the Jane in April Lindner’s novel has no reason to love dressing plain and acting like a killjoy, because she doesn’t have any strict moral values she’s trying emulate by behaving as she does.
3.) There is absolutely no reason, none, why any rich man in modern society would choose to lock up a mentally ill woman in an attic when they could afford to institutionalize them in a competent mental health place. Lindner tries to get around this by saying there are no quality places to send someone who is insane, and that is just patently untrue. I know for a fact that there is a lot more to do in a good mental health facility than there is in an attic. In good mental health facilities there are opportunities to socialize, people to make sure you take medication, board games, other patients, beading, group and personal counseling—a whole team of workers who are much more equipped to deal with a schizophrenic person than a paid helper with a drinking problem.
4.) It doesn’t make any sense that in modern society Mr. Rathburn wouldn’t have divorced or annulled his marriage. There are no laws saying a man can’t take care of his mentally-ill ex-wife. He could still care for her, still visit her, and still move on with his life if he put her in a mental facility. And using the excuse of not wanting this to show up in the press doesn’t hold water even for a rock star who has been publicly humiliated time and again in the tabloids.
5.) It doesn’t make sense that Jane would tell Mr. Rathburn not to get an annulment when her primary objection to being with him is that he’s already married. This is the crux of why the story doesn’t work. In the original version Mr. Rochester has no choice but to stay married to his wife and Jane, who is moral and religious, will not marry him, WILL NOT SLEEP with him because it’s against her religious convictions. It made sense. But here, Jane has already slept with Mr. Rathburn, she’s committed fornication, but she draws the line at adultery all while refusing to let Mr. Rathburn annul his marriage. Can we say contrived?
In the end, this book might be a very lovely read for someone who hasn’t read the original Jane Eyre and thus isn’t struck by a constant sense of déjà vu while reading it. It’s a good story for someone who likes a romance with a nice mystery element but doesn’t want anything deeper. No moral dilemmas, no questioning of societal conventions. I won’t trash the book and say it isn’t for anyone. I am sure many, many people would love reading it. For me, though, it just didn’t work. It was kind of like drinking orange juice for snack, instead of eating an actual orange.
In fairness, April Lindner has managed to condense Jane Eyre by hundreds of pages and has dared to do something most writers would never attempt: rewrite a book about what happens when societal expectations and personal moral/religious conviction clash so that it takes place in the 21st century with two protagonists who are neither religious nor moral.
She does this by instilling Jane with an arbitrary stubborn streak to replace the moral stubbornness possessed by Bronte's Jane. And by giving Mr. Rathburn a guilt complex in regards to his wife to replace the societal laws that kept the original Mr. Rochester from divorcing his wife in Bronte's version. I give props to April Lindner for finding a way to twist things around so there is still a conflict based on the original story. She is strikingly faithful to the plot line in every other respect. There are all the same fires, similar cruel relatives, the exact same love triangle, and names of characters are only altered slightly from the original. And yet, for me it falls flat, and these are the reasons why.
1.) The age difference between the protagonists that worked in the society that Jane Eyre lived in comes across as creepy and kind of gross in a modern world.
2.) Jane’s reserved manner, though believable in Bronte’s time, doesn’t ring true to a modern girl. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there aren’t shy girls in modern society. But in Bronte’s time a girl like Jane might be valued for her meekness and modesty for religious reasons, where the Jane in April Lindner’s novel has no reason to love dressing plain and acting like a killjoy, because she doesn’t have any strict moral values she’s trying emulate by behaving as she does.
3.) There is absolutely no reason, none, why any rich man in modern society would choose to lock up a mentally ill woman in an attic when they could afford to institutionalize them in a competent mental health place. Lindner tries to get around this by saying there are no quality places to send someone who is insane, and that is just patently untrue. I know for a fact that there is a lot more to do in a good mental health facility than there is in an attic. In good mental health facilities there are opportunities to socialize, people to make sure you take medication, board games, other patients, beading, group and personal counseling—a whole team of workers who are much more equipped to deal with a schizophrenic person than a paid helper with a drinking problem.
4.) It doesn’t make any sense that in modern society Mr. Rathburn wouldn’t have divorced or annulled his marriage. There are no laws saying a man can’t take care of his mentally-ill ex-wife. He could still care for her, still visit her, and still move on with his life if he put her in a mental facility. And using the excuse of not wanting this to show up in the press doesn’t hold water even for a rock star who has been publicly humiliated time and again in the tabloids.
5.) It doesn’t make sense that Jane would tell Mr. Rathburn not to get an annulment when her primary objection to being with him is that he’s already married. This is the crux of why the story doesn’t work. In the original version Mr. Rochester has no choice but to stay married to his wife and Jane, who is moral and religious, will not marry him, WILL NOT SLEEP with him because it’s against her religious convictions. It made sense. But here, Jane has already slept with Mr. Rathburn, she’s committed fornication, but she draws the line at adultery all while refusing to let Mr. Rathburn annul his marriage. Can we say contrived?
In the end, this book might be a very lovely read for someone who hasn’t read the original Jane Eyre and thus isn’t struck by a constant sense of déjà vu while reading it. It’s a good story for someone who likes a romance with a nice mystery element but doesn’t want anything deeper. No moral dilemmas, no questioning of societal conventions. I won’t trash the book and say it isn’t for anyone. I am sure many, many people would love reading it. For me, though, it just didn’t work. It was kind of like drinking orange juice for snack, instead of eating an actual orange.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 16, 2016
Nope. I can't. DNF, circa 50%.
From top to bottom, this is a Fail. Rochester as a rock star just doesn't work. At all. But the worst crime is Jane's endless whining & cliched personality ("wah wah wah, I don't GAF about clothes or looking good, boohoo, I has nobody! except I never actually interact with people by choice, ho-hum, I'm so DIFFERENT(tm) that nobody gets meeeee, I'm so unlike my peers & yet this rockstar Young Springsteen clone wants in my pants after two days, even though all I do is refuse to drink or wear anything remotely attractive & correct his language so he doesn't swear like a normal person..."). Seriously? There's a difference between icy, isolationist pride (which drove Jane Eyre from pg 1) & judgmental prudery (which is all THIS Jane does). Refusing to drink or swear + not caring about your looks + slut shaming + redonk expectations that everyone drift through life with the same boring-as-fuck prim attitude is just...I don't even know. WHY CAN NOBODY WRITE SHY, SOCIALLY AWKWARD PEOPLE CORRECTLY? Being shy doesn't mean you don't care about yourself. Being shy doesn't mean you're ashamed of naughty thoughts. Being shy means you can't EXPRESS yourself properly, not that you're an inhuman moo. It pisses me off SO MUCH that YA/NA authors persist in perpetuating these bullshit shyness stereotypes. FFS.
/Rant.
Whatever. I'm done with this book. The writing sucked & the 'retold' plot was nonexistent -- just a bunch of soul-bearing conversations wherein the Rochester insert burbled about his bad-boy past & the Jane moo judged him for having a tattoo & not decorating his house like Huggie Bear's pimp mobile (seriously, she was expecting fucking orgies & zebra print wallpaper. No exaggeration).
No. No. HELL FUCKING NO. <--Extra profanity just for you, Jane Moore. :D Merry christmas & happy fucking new year.
From top to bottom, this is a Fail. Rochester as a rock star just doesn't work. At all. But the worst crime is Jane's endless whining & cliched personality ("wah wah wah, I don't GAF about clothes or looking good, boohoo, I has nobody! except I never actually interact with people by choice, ho-hum, I'm so DIFFERENT(tm) that nobody gets meeeee, I'm so unlike my peers & yet this rockstar Young Springsteen clone wants in my pants after two days, even though all I do is refuse to drink or wear anything remotely attractive & correct his language so he doesn't swear like a normal person..."). Seriously? There's a difference between icy, isolationist pride (which drove Jane Eyre from pg 1) & judgmental prudery (which is all THIS Jane does). Refusing to drink or swear + not caring about your looks + slut shaming + redonk expectations that everyone drift through life with the same boring-as-fuck prim attitude is just...I don't even know. WHY CAN NOBODY WRITE SHY, SOCIALLY AWKWARD PEOPLE CORRECTLY? Being shy doesn't mean you don't care about yourself. Being shy doesn't mean you're ashamed of naughty thoughts. Being shy means you can't EXPRESS yourself properly, not that you're an inhuman moo. It pisses me off SO MUCH that YA/NA authors persist in perpetuating these bullshit shyness stereotypes. FFS.
/Rant.
Whatever. I'm done with this book. The writing sucked & the 'retold' plot was nonexistent -- just a bunch of soul-bearing conversations wherein the Rochester insert burbled about his bad-boy past & the Jane moo judged him for having a tattoo & not decorating his house like Huggie Bear's pimp mobile (seriously, she was expecting fucking orgies & zebra print wallpaper. No exaggeration).
No. No. HELL FUCKING NO. <--Extra profanity just for you, Jane Moore. :D Merry christmas & happy fucking new year.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 1,727 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.