Title: Re Jane Author: Patricia Park
Published: May 5, 2015
Genre(s): Realistic/Contemporary
Page Count: 352
Rating:
Summary from Goodreads:For Jane Re, half-Korean, half-American orphan, Flushing, Queens, is the place she’s been trying to escape from her whole life. Sardonic yet vulnerable, Jane toils, unappreciated, in her strict uncle’s grocery store and politely observes the traditional principle of nunchi (a combination of good manners, hierarchy, and obligation). Desperate for a new life, she’s thrilled to become the au pair for the Mazer-Farleys, two Brooklyn English professors and their adopted Chinese daughter. Inducted into the world of organic food co-ops, and nineteenth–century novels, Jane is the recipient of Beth Mazer’s feminist lectures and Ed Farley’s very male attention. But when a family death interrupts Jane and Ed’s blossoming affair, she flies off to Seoul, leaving New York far behind.
Reconnecting with family, and struggling to learn the ways of modern-day Korea, Jane begins to wonder if Ed Farley is really the man for her. Jane returns to Queens, where she must find a balance between two cultures and accept who she really is.
I love the promise of this book: a retelling of Jane Eyre with a modern Korean-American woman cast in the titular role. Literary retellings are often hit-or-miss with me, but I loved the way Patricia Park spun this particular novel. But, unfortunately, I feel that like many retellings, Re Jane just could not compare to Brontë’s original novel. When I was able to forget the derivative nature of the book, I enjoyed it, but often, and especially during the first half, it was hard to forget.
SOLID BOOK, BAD RETELLING
While I like that the author has been able to prove the “immortality” of literature by changing the circumstances of Brontë’s novel so greatly, I also think she would have just been better off by writing a novel treating the same themes that wasn’t a retelling. When I was constantly comparing this with Jane Eyre and thinking about how Park had changed the themes and characterizations and just, in general, couldn’t live up to the original, the book sucked. It sucked a lot. But when I was immersed in Jane’s story and her struggle for identity and love and independence, it was quite good.
By making this book a retelling, Park invited all sort of comparisons in which her work could only come up wanting, I think. The story of a Korean-American orphan living in Queens, trying to find her way in life, is one I like. Just toss out all those allusions to Brontë and we’re solid.
CONCERNING THE “MAD WIFE”…
I’m of two minds about the role of the Bertha Mason Rochester character Re Jane. In a modern setting, it’s obviously difficult to create the “crazy attic wife” persona believably without turning the Mr. Rochester stand-in into a horrible monster. Rather. what Park did was turn the wife character, Beth, into a overbearing, pretentious women’s studies professor whose ardent feminism is caricaturized and whose drive for her work is what pushes her husband into Jane’s arms.
Um.
That’s not really good. What this does is put Ed Farley, Beth’s husband into the role as victim, even though he’s the one committing the infidelity. Poor, poor Ed. Such a nagging, disagreeable wife, no wonder he had an affair. That just so gross. Regardless of any marital problems, Beth didn’t deserve to have her husband lie and sneak around and cheat on her. The way Re Jane suggests she did deserve those things was disgusting.
The character of Bertha Mason is probably the most difficult one in the original novel, I agree. I’ve read two modern adaptations now, and neither one has satisfied me in their treatment of this woman.
TRULY SKETCHY PROSE
Okay, so I’m just going to say I don’t think the writing in Re Jane is good.
For example, the “dear reader” asides, which are a hallmark of Jane Eyre, just felt cheesy and fake in this book. Like: “Then, ignoring those nagging voices inside me, I reached in for more. Sometime you just had to shut off your brain and do what felt right. Reader—it was delicious.” It was delicious? Really?
Then there was this truly lovely sex scene: “[His] tongue shuttling back and forth inside me, his saliva slapping the sides of my vaginal walls.” WHAT. I don’t even understand this.
And in general, Park relied heavily on summarization of events when she should have put them in-scene. Example “…after that night on the Promenade, our connection grew all the more deep.” But how did it grow stronger? In what ways? What does a stronger connection even look like for these people? I want this dramatized for me, not told to me point-blank.
RE JANE: MOSTLY A DUD
I think there were some great moments in Re Jane, and as I said, I love the concept and only wish Park had been able to do more with this. This was a different kind of immigrant story, and I liked the ways in which Jane grew over the course of the book. It was just that I couldn’t stop remembering that this was a retelling, and that as such, it was failing more than it was succeeding.
