Check out the book "Stop Saying Yes to Mr. No Good"!

Yes, because that's exactly what this group is looking for.

Don't spammers do any research at all?

ETA: OK, to rescue this thread, what supposedly good literary marriage makes you cringe?

The worst for me is Marianne Dashwood's to Col Brandon in Sense and Sensibility. Oh, Marianne, run!

Jo to Professor Bhaer in Little Women is horrific.

Hey, girls, this would be a better discussion if you explained why.

I think most Austen marriages are pretty scary, in that you can see the seeds of dissent sown in the courtships. Emma runs the risk of being hammered down by Mr. Knightley. Marianne runs the risk of dampened passion (though I think Colonel Brandon might turn out to be more than meets the eye). Elinor might get awfully sick of Edward Ferrars' lack of spine. And is Lizzie Bennett really going to cure Darcy of being an awful prig?

And I thought Professor Bhaer would be too heavy and intellectual for Jo March. But, being married to a German academic myself, maybe I'm projecting ...

How could I have forgotten poor Jo's marriage! Yeah, that ranks with Marianne's.

Nohrt, you got my reasons for pessimism aboout Marianne's marriage exactly. I don't think Bhaer is too intellectual for Jo, tho. More that he seems completely humorless & overbearing. Do you know that Susan Glaspell story "Trifles"? I see Jo ending up like that.

#5 My impression was Bhaer was the opposite of humorless and overbearing. Everybody seems to love him everywhere he goes--he's universally popular at the boarding house, and among the March family. He's poor but generous, likes kids and is willing to romp about with them. Of course he's serious and intellectual too, and he does have high standards and expectations of people (shown by his criticism of the horror stories printed in the papers), but I never felt he seemed humorless.

#4 Perhaps you are biased against Col Brandon because he wears a flannel waistcoat (horror of horrors!). I'm inclined to believe he's a pretty passionate guy.

Dare I say Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester? He's a bit of a sadist, don't you think?

#7. I am glad that you did mention the connection with Jane Eyre/Rochester.

It has always made me feel very uneasy. I thought that a lot of female friends, who loved the book (and the relationship), when they read it in their early/mid teens, was worrying.

The 'psychotic' woman in the attic and the close shave with bigamy. Jane seemed a meek and accepting young woman, who would accept almost anything from Rochester. Maybe not the best of themes for girly books, possibly then and certainly not now?

#8, I guess.

But I think we're meant to assume that Rochester's sadism is really self-loathing that Jane "cures" him.

Jane won't put up with anything from Rochester. She leaves him when she realizes that he's married and the prospect of St. John, that uptight religious nut who just wants to use Jane to further his mission, makes Rochester look like a prince.

I dislike that mystic/romantic connection between Jane and Rochester. I read that book when I was 12. Loved it. Still do (I'm 60), but I'm here to tell you that if any such mystic/romantic connection exists in real live relationships, it's entirely eluded me.

Jane won't put up with anything from Rochester. She leaves him when she realizes that he's married and the prospect of St. John, that uptight religious nut who just wants to use Jane to further his mission, makes Rochester look like a prince.

Yes. This is why I love JE so much. She appears to be a pushover on the surface, but she has strong standards and won't compromise them. I think that if R tries to push her boundaries in their marriage she will put him in his place if she's not comfortable. And the money she has inherited lessens the financial inequality between them, meaning that she is less dependent on him in that regard than she would have been had the original marriage been able to take place.

i try to read jane eyre taking the time into account. i mean, sure, it's true that rochester (like cariola (7) said) seems awfully sadistic with his weird tricks and ploys throughout, and i never understood why jane loved him, or reader, why she would marry him. but jane is this speak her mind, be true to herself woman that we don't see a lot of at that time period, and was probably kind of radical at that point. to do much more than to give her a relatively egalitarian marriage at that time would have been fantasy for readers. what we end up with was probably something much more empowering to the women of the time, and more attainable.

#10, 11, Yes, I think there are indications in the book (perhaps not as apparent to us now) that Jane sort of has the whip hand of Mr. Rochester. He's been injured, is half blind (punished for his crimes as all good Victorian characters are), and she is more financially independent, which was absolutely essential to any woman's freedom in those days (or ours).

#9, I admit I may be too harsh on Jane; I enjoyed that certain sexual frisson between Jane and Rochester, when I read it in my mid teens. But I still feel that unease.

Even more so, as you mention with the change in their relationship with of Jane becoming very 'in charge' ,as the now blind Rochester's carer. As a disabled person, since my mid 20s, I am very aware that power in any relationship can be manipulative.