Well, Charlotte, you’ve won.
The Brits—who, of course, invented romance, what with all that sweeping around the moors, plus Charles/Diana and the classy trysts we see in Hello! magazine—have voted Jane Eyre’s Mr. Rochester the most romantic man in literature, bumping our Mr. Darcy down to number-three status. In an impressive display of gracious victory, Andrew McCarthy of the Bronte Parsonage Museum at Haworth called Darcy (and everybody else in Jane’s world, which is a nice touch) “irritating.” We love you, too, Bronteites!
They’re not wrong, of course. As a romantic hero—and especially as a Romantic hero—Rochester’s brooding and breathy ways wipe the floor with Darcy, who is only awkward and devoted and does not lie about keeping a crazy wife locked in the attic. Rochester, after all, has the choice of wealthy and accomplished ladies, and turns his back on all of them to marry the plain and earnest governess—and acts as if she’s everything he’s ever wanted, singlehandedly turning her from dreary and dutiful orphan to love-story heroine. Darcy comes around eventually, but the grand gesture and love for the sake of love (flying in the face of social convention) isn’t what he’s about—and I’d propose that Jane (Austen, not Eyre; this is getting confusing) wouldn’t have him any other way, not being one for the Brontes’ brand of gushiness in the first place. In any case, does Lizzy hear Darcy’s supernatural voice echoing through the Lake Country, calling her back to her true love when she’s homeless and sleeping under a bush? No. No, she does not. So case closed, really.
Incidentally, Jane Austen’s contemporary Lord Byron comes up a lot in these conversations, which I suppose is all well and good if you want a “mad, bad, and dangerous-to-know” Sixth Baron poking about in your love life. Personally, I’m on the fence about this.
What I’m not sure about is whether they should be asking us about romance at all—if this list is any indication, we sure know how to pick ‘em. Clearly, we like the bad boys, and not without—let’s just say it—a bit of a masochistic bent. Rhett Butler? Heathcliff? I’m almost surprised Darcy’s ranked so highly–the good guys, the ones you’d eventually take home to meet your parents, are most definitely towards the bottom of the list (this, of course, being the crux of the issue—if they’d do okay at brunch with Mom and Dad, to paraphrase Harry Burns, perhaps “humpin’ and pumpin’ is not [their] strong suit”). What do we think about this, readers? Does romance generally equal a certain sense of choosing to be dominated? Is our love of exotic literary men our safe way of indulging the desire for a romantic (but not particularly kind or respectful) hero in our lives? Do we really think Heathcliff is that hot?
In any case, Bronte fans, congratulations—truly. But if we catch you outside our windows, moaning our names in the night, we’re taking the trophy back. You’ve been warned.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:53 am
Hmmm. Mr. Rochester is a lying, scheming, unfaithful, selfish twit…and those are his good points. Mr. Darcy is honest (painfully so at times), loyal, caring, loving, romantic, faithful and gives of himself without thought of being repaid. Why would anyone want Mr. Rochester as a life partner? Not me. I, for one, would like a man like Mr. Darcy…that to whom I could always turn in time of trouble, who would be strong when I am weak and understand my weakness. One I can believe in and trust completely. In point of fact, that’s exactly who I have.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I read Jane Eyre when I was 11. Mr. Rochester grossed me out. I read Wuthering Heights @ 16. Heathcliffe- made me swoon. I read Pride and Prejudice in college and many times since then. Darcy is for the thinking girl – that simple. You can have Rochester.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Who voted in this poll? Teenagers who still think bad boys are cool?
I mean, I’m not the biggest Darcy fan out there (I like Mr. Knightley and Edmund Bertram better – yes, I know I’m weird), but he’s miles better than the manipulative sociopathic tosser that Bronte holds up as romantic.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Funnily, this post puts Kate Bush’s Wuthering Heights in my head.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I think you’re quite right, Miss B. Clearly the Bronte romance (and voters ideas of such) is NOT related to Life-Ever-After, which generally gets short shrift in literature unless it’s all miserable or something. These dark and dangerous men are all about our fantasies: “A savage place! as holy and enchanted
As e’er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover!”
October 21st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Mrs. Porter – Amen! I do see the appeal of Rochester in a sense–and he *is* quite contrite at the end (not to mention he’s been blinded, so maybe he’s paid his dues by then)–but I don’t know. I’d so much rather give up a mansion on the moors and get a decent, normal guy. This seems perfectly romantic to me–when it comes down to it, I really just want a Jim Halpert. Heh. (P.S. Aww, you should tell Mr. Porter this, or I will!)
Mrs. Light – Now, I have never gotten the appeal of Heathcliff, period, but I also deeply dislike Wuthering Heights. I’ve tried, and it just doesn’t stick for me. They’re all just SO ANNOYING.
ibmiller – Hee, “manipulative sociopathic tosser.” I do maintain that their scene in the garden at night is pretty freakin’ romantic, but there is the whole matter of his scheming, lying, etc.
Sandra – Kate Bush did a song about Wuthering Heights? I do not know what to think about this. Hmmm.
Mrs. F – I think this is my problem. My sense of romance has so little to do with darkness OR danger that I don’t totally see the appeal of the bad boy–I like the idea of Darcy as romantic (but, again, not Romantic–I think Jane would have rolled her eyes mightily at them) because his appeal is in his deeply upstanding character. THAT, I can get behind.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Heathcliffe is like the brooding artsy fartsy kid in school. Who liked the Smiths and looked like he needed a bath and felt every hurt in the world. – All angsty and raw. – And after spending some time with him- He just got on your nerves. There’s reasons why he was doomed to roam the moors for all eternity!!!
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 am
The best thing about Wuthering Heights for me is that it’s so wonderfully referenced in the Jasper Fforde novels! I only read the book once, and I didn’t like it. Didn’t like any of the movie versions either. Heathcliff is such a douchebag! (THough, Mrs. Light, I can see why you as the sweet artsy girl you were in high school would like the broody artsy fartsy Heathcliffe. But he’s just too emo for me. Go get some therapy, dude!)
Not sure what to think about the whole “bad boy” attraction business. I’m generally not into the bad boys. I want nice, super smart, and sexy in one thoughtful package.
Re: Mr. Darcy…he’s not romantic, per se, but he’s awesome.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:06 am
This is an issue so close to my heart. As a teenager I cried in front of my entire English class, defending Mr. Rochester against those who insisted on disparaging him (pretty much everybody). Now when I read Jane Eyre I dwell on the fact that it was necessary to maim the man before he was an acceptable husband. As an adult Mr. Darcy is the man I’d humiliate myself for. It’s just like choosing between Willoughby and Colonel Brandon – as we mature we realize that the dashing young man is usually not the one who offers happiness. Hopefully we don’t pull a Lydia before we wise up.
It’s fascinating though – comparing Darcy and Rochester. They have more in common than one would think: Rochester could certainly be considered a redevelopment of Mr. Darcy’s character, infused with some of that passion which Charlotte accused Jane of lacking.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
Thanks for your comments, Alexa. Hope I wasn’t offensive to the teenage and former teenage audience. But I really don’t think Rochester’s a healthy object of romance – and your comment re: Willoughby and Brandon is very astute.
My question to Bronte is: why does passion have to be so darn scary? And unhealthy?
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
ibmiller: agree with your last comment above – why does passion have to be scary? Why can’t nice, shiny, upstanding boys be passionate? I think they can, which is why I love the character development we see in Mr. Darcy. I appreciate his love for Elizabeth because passion is a departure from who he typically is, whereas with Mr. Rochester, passion is what rules his life, so why would his relationship with Jane be any different?
Not sure if that made sense. Congratulations if you make it through that paragraph with any clue of what I meant.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Now, I have never gotten the appeal of Heathcliff, period
Well, then clearly you need to read Eclipse. Heh. Heeee. Sorry. I’m just mystified how someone couldn’t be taken by the man willing to smash his head into a tree as the only way to express his love.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
This is a very difficult question for me to respond to. To paraphrase Brain Regan, the Jane Austen canon is my favorite, but Jane Eyre is also favorite. I would argue, however, that Rochester does not match, in many ways, the usual profile of a Romantic hero. (BTW, Heathcliff, as far as I’m concerned, can go fall in a hole. And Cathy. And most of the charas in that book.)
As you might guess, I adore Rochester. It’s absolutely true that he’s brooding, mysterious, dangerous–a true Byronic hero. But he’s also caring and kind, when he thinks the person deserves it, and he treats Jane as an equal, and he risks his life to save his wife even though no one would blame him for not rushing back through that burning house for her and even though it’d be better for him if she died. And most importantly, and commonly overlooked, is that he wants to change. He tells Jane at one point that he wants to be a better person than he has been, and that’s part of the reason he loves her (although at the time he’s speaking hypothetically in the second person). If I may quote:
“You find in this stranger [Jane] much of the good and bright qualities which you have sought for twenty years, and never before encountered; and they are all fresh, healthy, without soil and without taint. Such society revives, regenerates: you feel better days come back–higher wishes, purer feelings; you desire to recommence your life, and to spend what remains to you of days in a way more worthy of an immortal being.”
Now, he has an extremely skewed moral compass and he goes about trying to obtain Jane in a highly objectionable manner, what with the lying and the trying to trick her into bigamy, but that passage has always redeemed him in my eyes just enough for me to continue adoring him. And as someone else has partially pointed out, her leaving and his subsequent injury humbles him, smooths out those last rough spots, until in the end he’s truly worth of her. And he does it without beating his head on a tree, dying for love, or rakishly abandoning his lover.
Now, as to him vs. Darcy, I would agree that in the middle of the book, Rochester is not the kind of man you’d take home to meet your parents . . . but then, neither is Darcy, as he would probably sneer at them unless they were rich and very well behaved. Both characters go through a change, from flawed and fallible at the beginning of the story to more of the hero we want. Rochester’s is a much more dramatic change, but I feel that in the end he’s a man that a girl could truly trust and be happy with. My point? After that long ramble, I suppose my point is that Rochester is favorite, but Darcy is also favorite. And Wentworth. And Thornton. Can I have four favorites?
October 30th, 2009 at 4:13 am
ibmiller and lannie: “why does passion have to be scary? Why can’t nice, shiny, upstanding boys be passionate?” I think they can be. But there’s no doubt they’re not nice and shiny *while* they’re passionate. Passion is too straightforward for that, and that makes it scary. This conundrum is I’m sure why the best heroes have a touch of villain.
And actors who can play villains make the most convincing, or deepest, heroes. AKA Alan Rickman himself, or Patrick Stewart.
Lannie: Yes, your comment makes sense to me.
I think it’s a really good point. I don’t know how to say it any better than you did, but I’m going to think about it!
Leave a Reply