Finally! I finished Jane Eyre! I didn't love it, but I liked it, liked it quite a bit, in fact. I liked the plot twists and surprises (though I wasn't surprised as I have seen a couple film versions). I liked Jane and Mr. Rochester, and I thought the author drew her characters fully and richly. I didn't always relish the amount of detail Bronte showers on the reader, though. At times it was tedious and I found myself impatient with it. It wasn't just the wordiness. I am used to nineteenth century English literature and the flow of many words in novels of that era. I thought she flooded us at times with details we didn't need to know and that didn't add to the story. And some conversations seemed nearly endless! How many times and in how many ways can Jane say no to St. John? Bronte explored them all. Nevertheless, I am glad I have finally read Jane Eyre, a book long in my mental TBR pile.
What I found most intriguing was Bronte's use of some words that we are used to seeing in one form but are presented in a form that is archaic to us. For instance, we hear and see the adjective "ruthless" in everyday speech, but Bronte gives us its noun form, "ruth," no less than four times! Or how about "debarrassed" and "disembarrassed"? "Encumbered" is common enough today, but "cumbered" and "cumbrous" are not. "Embruted" and "reft" are others. Probably my favorite was "veriest," the superlative form of "very." And a couple times she uses "Abigail" as a common noun equivalent, I think, to "maid." The English language is anything but dull! I was smart enough to keep a list of these words but not to note the pages where they were found, so don't ask for details. You'll have to read the book yourself! :-)
ETA: I forgot Mr. Linky! Here he is: