Chapter 15: Post-structuralist analysis

"I was honoured by a cordiality of reception that made me feel I really possessed the power to amuse him [Rochester]" (138).

It is evident that Jane is beginning to develop an attachment to Rochester as they spend more time together. Although this is her first affectionate relationship with a man, it is not what separates Rochester & Jane's relationship from Jane's past acquaintanceships (Helen, Mary, Ms. Temple). In the statement above, Jane is not only happy to be in Rochester's presence, but she is actually honored. The use of this word indicates that she is able to form a deeper connection with him, because of his superiority. As much as he tries to deny it, Jane is his subordinate as his employee. Fully acknowledging her inferiority, Jane expects to be treated with absolute disregard, disrespect, and scorn. However, on the contrary, Rochester actually treats her with regard, respect, and admiration: "I might have been as good as you, [Jane] - wiser, - almost as stainless. I envy your peace of mind, your clean conscience" (128). His words shock Jane, because she has never received compliments - especially from someone in a higher class than herself Therefore, it is natural that Jane would purposely use the word honored instead of a simple happy.

Intertextual Analysis: Frankenstein & Into the Wild

Initially, Frankenstein's reaction to his own creation of a monster was a bit perplexing, however, it is clear that his reaction is an exemplification of the universal truth presented throughout this novel as well as in the movie, Into the Wild. "Happiness not real when it is not shared" is presented in the movie and is reaffirmed through Frankenstein's behavior. Frankenstein became so consumed with science and nature that when he actually achieved his goal, he was unable to celebrate his accomplishment. By the end of the film, Into the Wild, it is more than obvious that the main character could not enjoy what he loved most due to the absence of companionship. The universal truth presented is challenging the validity of essentially any and everything, when only one person believes it to be true. My belief that two plus two equals five (hypothetically, of course) is invalid, because it is not a truth shared by more than one individual. Just as Frankenstein and Christopher McCandless's happiness was non-existent due to lack of companionship. What makes happiness real if there is nobody else to express that same emotion? How could Christopher or Frankenstein possibly express emotions of happiness without sharing it with another being just like them? It was not until "Clerval called forth the better feelings of [Frankenstein’s] heart" that "inanimate nature had the power of bestowing on [him] the most delightful sensations" (45).