Shirley

by Charlotte Bronte

Ever since I first read it in late adolescence, Jane Eyre has been my favorite book. It’s fascinating, moving, just exquisite. Last year I read Villette, also by C. Bronte and also loved it. As a whole it was not quite as wonderful as Jane Eyre but elements of it were just as delicious, if not better. I’d never heard of Shirley, and I was a little apprehensive – if it’s not well-known, could it be as good as her other works?

Well, I really enjoyed it but it’s not quite as good as her other ones. I think the reason for this is it involves 4 main characters plus peripheral folks. Part of the power of Jane and Villette is you get to know the main character, who is narrating, so well and by the end the empathy is complete (at least for me.) My theory is that Charlotte’s genius was in the single-point-of-view in the first person, not the 3rd party narrator who shows you many perspectives and adds commentary. (George Eliot excels at this, especially in Middlemarch.) The characters in Shirley are meant as types to be compared and contrasted, and they are not strongly believable. I did not find myself relating to and empathizing with all of them.

Rather than an intimate exploration of someone’s emotional life and relationships, this book is a social commentary. I was quite surprised by some of the views expressed by the characters, they seem very progressive and ahead of their time. There were things that were very bluntly stated about what people honestly believed about the role of women (middle-class women), the attitudes and behavior of the clergy, and the economic upheaval of the time. During the Napoleonic wars the manufacturers were unable to trade with other nations and couldn’t stay profitable in domestic markets. The workers displaced by new machinery were facing starvation and blamed the mill owners.

There were a lot of plot twists and exciting scenes. There were dramatic conversations and amusing descriptions of characters and their foibles. Charlotte Bronte’s skill at writing shines through in these elements. However, she failed to bring some of the concepts she introduced into satisfactory resolution. One of these was, is there such a thing as a happy marriage? (I suppose a suggestion does lie hidden in the story, that a young person should let time reveal the true colors of one’s future mate) Is there such a thing as a fulfilling single life? One thing that was suggested, not explicitly presented, was that we should not judge people by their station in life. Just because someone is a curate or a vicar doesn’t mean he lives a Christ-like life. Just because someone is poor doesn’t mean he is stupid or not deserving of respect. Just because someone is rich and successful doesn’t mean he or she is above reproach. Just because someone is a woman doesn’t mean she can’t have good ideas and make decisions. We can’t depend on institutions and our assumptions about their roles or results. We must think and act for ourselves.

In conclusion, I guess I would say if you’ve read CB’s other works already, give this one a try, it’s a notable contrast. If not, read Jane Eyre or Villette first. Charlotte’s sisters Anne and Emily were incredibly talented authors as well, Anne’s Tenant of Wildfell Hall is one of my top favorites and while Emily’s Wuthering Heights is not to my taste and did not endear itself to me at all, it’s top-notch fiction, Romanticism at its finest.