Jane Eyre-rant

As I have just moved to Nevada, the idea of holidays is somewhat frightening. I do not have any family within less than a day's drive, nor do I have the ambition to drive for a day. This means that I risk the chance of spending these "special" days alone. Luckily enough, my friend Kathryn was in Las Vegas for thanksgiving. So I did have social contact for one day. However, my closest companions for the past holiday have been one Jane Eyre and one Mr. Rochester.

My housemate, Jenna, and I shared similar tastes in music, literature and movies. Unfortunately, this proved to be a major distraction in doing schoolwork; but we did have chance to bond over our mutual appreciation for 18th century gothic novels and Austen-ian scenarios. Each of us had "Pride and Prejudice" memorized, and each of us had read Jane Eyre many many times in the short duration of our lives. When Jenna came home from one of our school breaks with a new DVD of the Masterpiece Theater Jane Eyre, I knew I was in trouble. Two disks, faithful to the book, and romantic; this DVD proved to be altogether too much for the both of us. It is for this reason I decided to not purchase the movie; as I knew that if I owned it, I would never finish any essays or even want to read my philosophy homework.

When I read Jane Eyre, I felt such an affinity towards the main character. Obviously, this is the reason most girls love this book. Jane is plain and poor. In society's eyes, she has nothing to give. All she wants is to love and be loved, yet she lives quietly on the periphery of most. But then she falls madly in love with her boss, only to discover that he loves her too! How lucky! The book was a beacon of hope for us book-worms, steaming our glasses and making our braces chatter with excitement.

While I may not be as shy as she is (and goodness knows I wish I was), I conceal my inner feelings from those who do not know me. I watch people interact and mimic them so as to appear normal and maybe even likeable. I can't help but wonder if I could have that kind of bond with someone, to find a Mr. Rochester who seems as much a part of me as my own arm or the nose on my face. I long for a society where the bond of affection is built on an emotional basis and not a physical one. Where the urge that leads one to a relationship is one of a mental connection and does not rely on the crippling rush of hormones.

While they did not have microwaves, air conditioning or diet pepsi back in Jane's time; there was a feeling of accepting quality over quantity back then that I wish we kept. Clothes were made to last, people built relationships they cherished and knew they would keep for their lifetime. In the hayday of Wal-Mart and the market drive to produce more for less, this attitude (even just in the smallest of interactions) seems impossible and unnecessary. I am certain that I romanticize that time of history (even the topic of science in the book makes me cringe), I am increasingly aware that human interaction is more important than most anything else, and that this interaction accounts for more than we can imagine. When you purchase something; you are purchasing an item made by humans (perhaps not their hands, but from their work), you give your money to a human for the object, you take it to your home or place of business where there lies the possiblity of other people interacting with it. Can we go back to this idea of quality over quantity?