I have read this book a couple of times now.  When I was much younger, it was one of the books my grandmother gave me.  Through the years, I have gained many messages from it.  This time through, I have been thinking more about an event that occurred at the beginning of the book.  Jane is not treated well by those with whom she lives with and after one of those unfair treatments, Jane strikes out. 

In consequence of her actions, she is sent away to a school for orphans.  A pretty severe consequence for a lapse in self-control.   That seems so extreme and cruel.   This time through, I looked at the story in a different light.  Audrey Rindlisbacker (Mission-Driven Mom) asks the question:  What principle/s did Jane or her aunt not understand or live?

Well, that has me thinking and thinking.

To add to that, I have been comparing Mrs. Reed with Miss Temple.  Both of these adults were responsible for Jane Eyre’s well–being.  How were they different?  Why?

I way I see it is that Miss Temple tried to live her life based on principles, and Mrs. Reed lived her life based on emotions.  Even at the end of Mrs. Reed’s life, she showed that she was still ruled by her emotions, and those emotions were all negative.  Miss Temple worked to find the principles and had a more positive view of her situation, yet their circumstances were very different.  Miss Temple had a very hard, cold life compared to the comfort and luxury of Mrs. Reed’s life. 

When Jane was around Mrs. Reed, she too lived based on her emotions – her very negative emotions.  Jane was treated unfairly; however, the thoughts that she had made things worse for her.  Jane chose passion over principle for many years.   You can see this as you compare Jane to Miss Temple and Helen.  Both of these ladies suffered much, yet they found ways to find the good, be positive, and focus on the principles of natural law. 

Jane did follow in the footsteps of Miss Temple and Helen.  She states:  “Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be.  If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?  They have a worth – so I have always believed;…”

Jane turned from the idea of allowing emotion to rule her and lived by the principles she discovered in her life. 
This story has me thinking about how I treat people.  Do I let my emotions rule, or do I live my life based on principles?   In what ways should I treat people?  Based on what principles? 

What principles were not understood at the beginning of this story?  That all people are of divine worth and should be treated with kindness and respect.  

I have now read this book twice and have to say that I needed mentoring to see some of the lessons of this book.   I am so glad that there are people who do understand different ideas and share them with others.  Think of all the things that we would miss out on if there were not people sharing their ideas and gifts with the world.
 
The first time I read this book, I recorded that the Know-Feel-Do of the story was:
K – Trust is Good
F – that character (morality) is important
D- be trustful, courageous, and honorable like the princess. 
 
I wrote down that fairy tales are not about ethos, pathos, and Logos but are meant to make a point.   So what is the point I take from this story?
 
I think I want to spend a minute or two recording my thoughts about the light and darkness in the book.  The goblins live underground in the darkness because they didn’t want to pay taxes and withdrew.  In their new lives underground, they had and held on to a lot of their grievances, and that resentment grew and grew.  They changed as people, becoming physically and mentally different.    

They spend their time “devising trouble for their neighbours”.   Interesting.  How am I like this?  How do I hold onto things and cause myself to withdraw from the light and beauty that the world offers me?  Painful questions to ask.   The goblins hold on to their ideas so fervently that in the end, the government (King and Queen) makes several decisions that will cause them to destroy most of their population and their underground world. 

The caretakers of the Princess (Irene) knew that the goblins were causing trouble, so as they cared for her, they were very concerned with security and keeping the princess safe.  They had rules about being out after dark, closing the windows, and keeping guards on watch.  They were so focused on keeping Irene safe that they missed when she was not there and had left the safety of her home.   This approach was very different from her grandmother, who was always connected with light.  Her grandmother gave her guidance and gifts to help navigate through the challenges, along with healing when Irene returned.   Grandmother’s influence brought into Irene’s life also the Peterson family, who taught her many lessons.  Good relationships brought good actions. 
As I have been pondering this book, I keep returning to the light and the dark features of the story.  I wonder if I am surrounding myself with darkness or fear of the dark or seeking light.  I hope that I can move away from dark thinking and fear of the dark so that I spend my time seeking light. 

There are several men in this play that you can compare to decide who is the ideal husband: The Earl of Caversham, Viscount Goring, Sir Robert Chiltern, and Baron Arnheim (not present in the play).  You can also look at the ladies and ask who the ideal spouse is.  Which is the best marriage?  You could look at the areas that Oscar Wilde pokes fun at. 

The main focus of the play is Sir Robert Chiltern, the respected and honorable politician who a scheming woman is blackmailing.  I guess if you can be blackmailed, you might not be a truly respected and honorable politician.  Of course, that depends on why he is respected. 
We learn very quickly in the play that the origin of wealth his career start of Sir Robert comes from sharing government secrets.  Is Sir Robert remorseful for his actions?  I think not. 

He states: 
“Gertrude, public and private life are different things.  They have different laws, and move on different lines.”

and,

“Gertrude, truth is a very complex thing, and politics is a very complex business.”

And,

“And, after all, whom did I wrong by what I did?  No one.”

And

“Of course I had private information about a certain transaction contemplated by the Government of the day, and I acted on it.  Private information is practically the source of every large modern fortune”.

And

“Every man of ambition has to fight his century with its own weapons.  What this century worships is wealth.  The God of this century is wealth.  To succeed one must have wealth.  At all costs one must have wealth”.

And

“No; that money gave me exactly what I wanted, power over others”.
 
I don’t see that Sir Robert has many regrets other than his wife might leave him because he hid the truth from her.  His friend, Lord Goring, saves the day; Sir Robert keeps the girl and gets a promotion.
Lord Goring has many lines in the play that are well executed; he shows himself to be the best candidate for an ideal husband.  One of those popular lines is:  “Women are not meant to judge us, but to forgive us when we need forgiveness.  Pardon, not punishment, is their mission”. 

Forgiveness is important in all relationships.  And no doubt Sir Robert needs some forgiveness.  My question is, since he doesn’t believe he did wrong, what is he being forgiven of?  And more importantly, how long will it be before he finds that to move ahead in his career, he will do something dishonorable again?  People are human.  Should we just excuse politicians for just doing what everyone else is doing?  I am sure we can find that they are likable and have some good qualities, but what are we saying when we don’t hold people accountable for their integrity?  What are we saying when we focus on the cute romance and the great acting but don’t address the principles the story shares with us?  Is the quote 100% true? Should no judgment ever occur, and just excusing action always be the case?   Are private virtue and public virtue distinct from each other?  Should they have different laws?

I have really enjoyed and used The Fourth Turning: An American Prophesy by William Strauss and Howe.  I have many notes in the book and even loose papers that I have added over time.  I was looking forward to reading the update in The Fourth Turing is Here.  I am sadly disappointed.  Much of the book is rehashing the old material with more of the author's opinion compared to the first book.  I can’t say more than his opinion because he does not source everything in a way to verify his words. For example, on p. 239, he states, “Overall, America’s blue zone is wealthier, healthier, more educated, more professional, more mobile, more economically unequal, and more ethnically diverse.  America’s red zone is more churchingoing, more neighborly, more charitable, more family oriented, more rooted, more violent, less bureaucratic, and less taxed”.
He sourced:  America’s blue zones are wealthier and healthier, more economically unequal, [Red zones are] more neighborly, more charitable, more entertaining, more affordable.   I am curious about his sources for the other claims.
The book also goes on and on trying to prove his cycles theory, but it focuses on the events that prove his point, and history is way more complicated.  His repetitious rabbit trails are exhausting, so it is easy to skim without thinking.   For this reason, I prefer The Fourth Turning: An American Prophesy.  It has fewer history lessons, so I can go out on my own and learn the history instead of depending on the author’s point of view. 
There are several parts of this book that are updated or newer.  1. There is a section on what the rising generation, named the Homelanders, may look like.  This section was interesting.  Reading this section, I think, will help you decide if you need to adjust what you are doing as a family and may change how you mentor youth who were born 2006 and after.  2.  The crisis predictions have adjusted based on the current situations we are in. These seem very plausible, which has led me to read a couple of other books:  Red-Handed:  How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win by Peter Schweizer and When China Attacks: A Warning to America by Grant Newsham.   Unfortunately, I was not surprised by the information in Red-Handed.  I am still working on When China Attacks.  So I guess it was worth the cost of the book if it motivated me to learn more about the world events.