Rochester’s Transformation or Maybe Not?


In our class discussions two opposing ideas and observations were brought up: Rochester undergoes a transformation that drives him to be evil or that Rochester is inherently evil and has harbored this evil inside him from the very beginning. The consensus seemed to be that Rochester undergoes a transformation throughout the course of the book, however, I would like to argue that Rochester’s character and Englishness manifests itself as “evil” throughout the course of the novel.

            Our very first impression of Rochester is in part two of the book with his statement, “So it was all over, the advance and retreat, the doubts and hesitations. Everything finished, for better or for worse” (38). His voice strikes a similar tone to a conqueror drawing parallels to the British Empire’s expansions and demonstrating that he view his marriage militaristically. Rochester is the embodiment of the “English identity” and his mission is to shape everything that threatens or differs from its values.

            Just a little down the first page of part one Rochester observes darkly that “she was laughing at me I could see. A lovely little creature but sly, spiteful, malignant perhaps, like much else in this place” (38). This observation demonstrates that Rochester is already biased against Jamaica and anything he considers to belong with Jamaica. On my first read through of the novel I first viewed Rochester in a positive light and was surprised by his “mad scientist” speech as I believed he was giving the marriage a chance. However, now with these observations I believe that Rochester’s English identity and biases led to an inevitable deterioration of their relationship.

            The breaking points that we identified in class in relation to Rochester’s supposed transformation, aren’t actually indicators of a profound change in Rochester, but instead events that provoke Rochester’s English identity and morals. Rochester is driven to win just like how the British Empire strives to dominate. What do you think? I think that the panel presentations about the ecosystem, identity, and colonialism made me take another look at how we viewed Rochester.  

Comments

  1. ElishaNovember 17, 2018 at 1:12 AM

    I agree with you on some notes, although I do think that Rochester goes through a sort of transformation throughout the novel. Although he wasn't all rainbows-and-sunshine at the beginning, he wasn't mad or entirely malignant, either. His Englishness, while perhaps undesirable, isn't the thing that makes him evil. I do think that the "breaking points" you mentioned aren't everything, but they perhaps brought out the worst in a character that already had the potential for madness inside of him (although that doesn't necessarily make him mad or evil at the beginning).

    ReplyDelete
  2. ChristelleNovember 17, 2018 at 8:02 AM

    I agree with the idea that Rochester wasn't a good person even before his supposed transformation. I felt Rochester's becoming mentally unhinged and 100% evil/bad by the end of the novel was more of a manifestation of things that were already in Rochester long before. For example, he pretends to be supportive of Antoinnette in the beginning but through his narrative we can recognize that he has a complete disregard for Antoinnette and every culture that isn't English.

    ReplyDelete
  3. GrantNovember 17, 2018 at 12:44 PM

    I had never thought of Rochester's first line as a reference to concurring that definitely paints him as the evil colonial power exploiting the natives, which is what he does. He was born into a life and a society that put him into the role of the colonizer which has an inherently evil connotation. I definitely see the argument that he was always bad, but idk if he was always evil.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Geoffrey DingNovember 17, 2018 at 2:56 PM

    Wow, this was very interesting. After thinking about this deeper i have to say I agree with you on some parts. There is a concrete transformation that goes on for sure. We don't really see Rochester before he moved over, but we know he was a pretty good guy. At the end, he really did seem evil, I mean he did lock up someone in the attic. However, I feel like the transition was actually more gradual instead of these breaking points. I think he just turned evil over time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sophia SchmitzNovember 17, 2018 at 8:37 PM

    This is super interesting. He was never the good person he might have seemed to be at the start. While his bad characteristics may have been hidden under the surface for some time they were always there.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Meursault as a Sociopath?

In class it was brought up that Meursault might be a sociopath and of course being the expert I was since I watched the whole Shane Dawson series I was intrigued and decided to actually do some research on how sociopaths are diagnosed. From visiting a couple of sites on Google here are the characteristics I gathered: Glibness-superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth   Need for stimulation   Pathological lying Conning-manipulative Lack of remorse or guilt Shallow affect Callous-lack of empathy Parasitic lifestyle   Poor behavior controls Promiscuous sexual behavior Lack of realistic, long-term goals Impulsivity Irresponsibility   Failure to accept responsibility   Many marital relationships Criminal versatility The implication of diagnosing Meursault as a sociopath is that we must interpret his actions throughout the book quite differently. No longer is his tone and mannerism neutral, but instead demonstrative of his callous-l...
Read more

Is it just me?

My first thought about Jake et Gang was, What a great care-free life! All they seemed to do was eating great meals and going out for a drink or dance. Jake and others, despite their flaws, seemed to be harmless, and I enjoyed their antics and banter as I loved their ability to never take anything too seriously. However, I began to despise them as I witnessed how they, the so-called friends, aggravated and brought out the worst in each other. I felt disgusted when in Spain Jake started to purposefully make fun and provoke Cohen, punishing him for his infatuation with Brett. Jake no longer was the pitiful scarred lovesick man but a bully intent on pushing his enemy into mental misery. I extremely disliked this powerplay and the intentional harm Jake inflicted on Cohen. I hated the drama and the fake friendships.   Rather than having honest moments, the characters always put a facade of civility and pretend they are getting along when everything is going to hell. The chara...
Read more

Family in the Metamorphosis

Ah, family, the bunch of people you are eternally related to. Their problems become your problems and your life is constantly being influenced by them. Sometimes you’re glad you have them and in short bursts of anger you are resentful that you cannot choose your family (ahem ahem siblings). However, in the Metamorphosis we never see Gregor display any strong resentment as a result of events that would have riled up any other normal human being. Gregor somehow manages to take outright thievery and attempts on his life and spin it in a positive manner. Gregor is fittingly turned into an insect because that is exactly how his family sees him: expendable and insignificant. His father, mother, and sister, who we all see are perfectly capable of working later in the story decide to bankroll a lavish lifestyle off of Gregor’s labor. Gregor’s family is completely unmotivated to resolve the debt and are content in letting Gregor’s misery last an additional five years. Indeed, it’s quite ...
Read more