I couldn’t picture a more mismatched pair than Beth Mazer and Ed Farley (p 25).
I agree with Tara Sonenshine’s assessment that Re Jane is sappy. I also found it overlong and digressive.
Jane Eyre is my favorite book. So I was hoping to love Re Jane, to feel passionately about this Jane and her Ed as I’d felt so passionately for JE and Mr. Rochester.
Instead, I kept thinking, “What a terrible match Re Jane and Ed Farley make!” It came not as a surprise, but a relief, when Jane left him for good.
I didn’t love (the character of) Re Jane as I did (the character of) Jane Eyre. JE had a stout character and a strong morale compass with a delightfully questioning nature. She was intellectual and adept.
JE would not have accepted Rochester’s affections had she known he was married.
Re Jane, while intellegent, came across as base. Jane Eyre, meanwhile, committed unshakably to rightness. She had a fierceness to her. Re Jane shone only after dumping Ed.
Re Jane made mostly superficial observations. She changed her appearance to fit in. I could not see JE doing this.
Then there was Beth. The not crazy woman who was cuckolded (which is a term for a man whose wife cheats on him. Why is there no name for a woman whose husband cheats on her, huh?) by her lousy, stereotypical husband.
So, this book was not at all what I expected and fell far short. It had strengths and may have made a stronger case for itself if it had stood on its own but its attempt to tack on to Jane Eyre felt false. Like thievery. And clumsy theft at that. Lines of Jane Eyre inserted into Re Jane fell flat. As did the direct addresses to the Reader.
Kirkus said Park is “a fine writer with an eye for the effects of class and ethnic identity, a sense of humor, and a compassionate view of human weakness who nevertheless doesn’t make the rookie error of letting her characters off easy.” I mostly agree. If only she hadn’t tried to connect this novel with Jane Eyre. It simply didn’t work for me.
wordstocking 