展开全部
这是转载别人的:
在我的心目中，《简•爱》是一部完美而伟大的著作，因为它使我懂得了什么是善恶美丑，学会了怎样做人，而书中的主人公简•爱就是我学习的榜样，她的聪明、善良、坚强、有主见，是最令人敬佩的。简•爱的一生悲欢离合。她遭遇了许多挫折和坎坷，可以说是不幸的，但是她却从不向命运低头，任何困难在她面前都会感到恐惧。
简•爱从小被她的舅妈收养，受尽了她的虐待。而且她舅舅的儿子约翰里德还是一个又胖又大、蛮横无理、猪狗不如的禽兽。他经常无缘无故地打骂简•爱，但她的舅妈不但不去制止，反而支持她野蛮的儿子。然而，简•爱是一各顽强的、决不向恶势力低头的人。她再也忍受不了了，她对约翰的恨压倒了对他的畏惧，不顾一切地跟他对打起来。当然，结果可想而知，简•爱受到了她舅妈的惩罚。但她的这次举动足以令约翰胆颤心惊。
简•爱说过这样的一段话，给我的印象很深，也很能体现她的性格。她说：“如果大家老是对残酷，不公道的人百依百顺，那么那些坏家伙就更要任性胡来了，他们会什么也不惧怕，这样也就永远也不会改好，反而越来越坏，当我们无缘无故挨了打，我们一定要狠狠地回击。”我很赞成简的这种说法，因为自尊、自重是做人的最起码的要求。
但是海伦•彭斯，她的观点与简是截然不同的。海伦主张凡事能忍旧忍，这样自己快乐，别人也会对你好一些。我觉得海伦的这些话在我们看来是很让人不可理解的。但是她的宽容、忍让以及她那博大的胸怀，是令人钦佩的。我们无需去评价她的话，至少我们应从中悟出些什么。我很喜欢海伦的一句话：“我觉得生命太短促了，不值得把它花费在怀恨和记仇上。”只要我们每人都能记住它，多多去理解别人，体谅别人，关心别人，多看到一些美好的事物，乐观地对待生活，我们的生活中一定会充满阳光。
我认为罗切斯特先生，正是她生活中的阳光。他们两人的交往是愉快的；他们两人的对话又是耐人寻味的。因为他们各自的性格特点都在那简短的对话中表现得淋漓尽致。
罗切斯特先生是一个正直、善恶分明而又带有幽默感的人。他们两人真心相爱了。然而在他们的婚礼上，梅森先生揭露了罗切斯特先生是个有妻之夫的秘密后，简彻底失望了，她怀着万分悲痛的心情离开了他。然而他们最终又走到了一起。
时间会消除报复的渴望，平息愤恨和憎恶的冲动。简•爱曾经是带着满腔怨恨离开她舅妈的，但当她听说里德太太生命垂危，又很想见她一面的时候，简忘却了她的一切不好，毫不犹豫地回到了她曾经厌恶的地方。当她见到里德太太时，简所剩的都是对她的怜悯之情。但是里德太太告诉了她一件很重要的事：在三年前，简的叔叔给她写了一封信，想让她继承他的遗产，因为他无儿无女，所以想收简为养女，但是因为里德太太当时对她厌恶至极，也不想让她走远，过上富日子。所以她给简的叔叔回了一封信，说简在洛伍德生伤寒病死了。就这样，简•爱失去了一个转变自己命运的好机会。里德太太的这种行为是很令人气愤的，然而简却没有计较这件事，还不住地安慰里德太太，让她把这些事都统统忘掉，而且简很希望能与她和解，但直到死她也没能改变她对简的态度，这使简无奈而又痛苦。
然而通过这件事，简•爱在我心目中的形象更加高大起来了。简•爱的身上到处都有闪光点。她善良而又宽容，那种视金钱如粪土的精神，更是当今社会的人所应该学习的。
《简•爱》这本书能够照出我们身上的不足，让我们找到正确的人生方向，把曾经失去的东西找回来。让我们有信心、有勇气去面对困难，并且战胜困难，为我们的人生添上绚丽的一笔。
参考资料：百度贴吧<<简爱>>里的<<简爱读后感>>.
在我的心目中，《简•爱》是一部完美而伟大的著作，因为它使我懂得了什么是善恶美丑，学会了怎样做人，而书中的主人公简•爱就是我学习的榜样，她的聪明、善良、坚强、有主见，是最令人敬佩的。简•爱的一生悲欢离合。她遭遇了许多挫折和坎坷，可以说是不幸的，但是她却从不向命运低头，任何困难在她面前都会感到恐惧。
简•爱从小被她的舅妈收养，受尽了她的虐待。而且她舅舅的儿子约翰里德还是一个又胖又大、蛮横无理、猪狗不如的禽兽。他经常无缘无故地打骂简•爱，但她的舅妈不但不去制止，反而支持她野蛮的儿子。然而，简•爱是一各顽强的、决不向恶势力低头的人。她再也忍受不了了，她对约翰的恨压倒了对他的畏惧，不顾一切地跟他对打起来。当然，结果可想而知，简•爱受到了她舅妈的惩罚。但她的这次举动足以令约翰胆颤心惊。
简•爱说过这样的一段话，给我的印象很深，也很能体现她的性格。她说：“如果大家老是对残酷，不公道的人百依百顺，那么那些坏家伙就更要任性胡来了，他们会什么也不惧怕，这样也就永远也不会改好，反而越来越坏，当我们无缘无故挨了打，我们一定要狠狠地回击。”我很赞成简的这种说法，因为自尊、自重是做人的最起码的要求。
但是海伦•彭斯，她的观点与简是截然不同的。海伦主张凡事能忍旧忍，这样自己快乐，别人也会对你好一些。我觉得海伦的这些话在我们看来是很让人不可理解的。但是她的宽容、忍让以及她那博大的胸怀，是令人钦佩的。我们无需去评价她的话，至少我们应从中悟出些什么。我很喜欢海伦的一句话：“我觉得生命太短促了，不值得把它花费在怀恨和记仇上。”只要我们每人都能记住它，多多去理解别人，体谅别人，关心别人，多看到一些美好的事物，乐观地对待生活，我们的生活中一定会充满阳光。
我认为罗切斯特先生，正是她生活中的阳光。他们两人的交往是愉快的；他们两人的对话又是耐人寻味的。因为他们各自的性格特点都在那简短的对话中表现得淋漓尽致。
罗切斯特先生是一个正直、善恶分明而又带有幽默感的人。他们两人真心相爱了。然而在他们的婚礼上，梅森先生揭露了罗切斯特先生是个有妻之夫的秘密后，简彻底失望了，她怀着万分悲痛的心情离开了他。然而他们最终又走到了一起。
时间会消除报复的渴望，平息愤恨和憎恶的冲动。简•爱曾经是带着满腔怨恨离开她舅妈的，但当她听说里德太太生命垂危，又很想见她一面的时候，简忘却了她的一切不好，毫不犹豫地回到了她曾经厌恶的地方。当她见到里德太太时，简所剩的都是对她的怜悯之情。但是里德太太告诉了她一件很重要的事：在三年前，简的叔叔给她写了一封信，想让她继承他的遗产，因为他无儿无女，所以想收简为养女，但是因为里德太太当时对她厌恶至极，也不想让她走远，过上富日子。所以她给简的叔叔回了一封信，说简在洛伍德生伤寒病死了。就这样，简•爱失去了一个转变自己命运的好机会。里德太太的这种行为是很令人气愤的，然而简却没有计较这件事，还不住地安慰里德太太，让她把这些事都统统忘掉，而且简很希望能与她和解，但直到死她也没能改变她对简的态度，这使简无奈而又痛苦。
然而通过这件事，简•爱在我心目中的形象更加高大起来了。简•爱的身上到处都有闪光点。她善良而又宽容，那种视金钱如粪土的精神，更是当今社会的人所应该学习的。
《简•爱》这本书能够照出我们身上的不足，让我们找到正确的人生方向，把曾经失去的东西找回来。让我们有信心、有勇气去面对困难，并且战胜困难，为我们的人生添上绚丽的一笔。
参考资料：百度贴吧<<简爱>>里的<<简爱读后感>>.
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
展开全部
小说主要内容是女主人公简爱的成长历程，她从小失去父母，寄住在舅妈家，不平等的待遇让她饱受欺凌，小小年纪就承受了别人无法想象的委屈和痛苦。成年后，她成了桑菲尔德贵族庄园的家庭教师，她以真挚的情感和高尚的品德赢得了主人的尊敬和爱恋，但是命运对她如此残忍，她为这段婚姻又付出了难以计算的代价，但自始至终她都一直坚持着自己的信念，执着自己的理想与追求。
简·爱——女主人公。（坚强，独立自主，有主见）
罗切斯特——简爱的丈夫。（看似冷漠内心狂野，有个疯老婆但坚持娶心爱的简爱，简爱知道出走后一度颓废，被疯老婆放火烧了庄园，为救疯老婆瞎了一只眼，断了一条胳膊，疯老婆死后和简爱在一起。）
圣约翰——简爱的表兄。（追求简爱,但理由只是让简·爱适合做一位传教士的妻子，成为他的助手）（一个人去探险了）
里德太太——简·爱的舅妈，对简·爱并不公平。（后死）
约翰——里德太太的儿子，暴躁、惹是生非，小时候经常欺负简·爱。（已死）
海伦－－简·爱在罗沃德慈善学校的好友学校的好友。（死于瘟疫）
戴安娜和玛丽－－简爱的表姐。（圣约翰的胞妹）
爱丽丝·费尔法克斯－－罗切斯特的女管家。
阿黛尔－－罗切斯特旧情人的女儿。（罗切斯特是她的监护人，简·爱的学生）
英格拉姆小姐——长得美丽动人的贵族小姐，罗切斯特先生的追求者，但不是为了爱，而是钱。
简·爱——女主人公。（坚强，独立自主，有主见）
罗切斯特——简爱的丈夫。（看似冷漠内心狂野，有个疯老婆但坚持娶心爱的简爱，简爱知道出走后一度颓废，被疯老婆放火烧了庄园，为救疯老婆瞎了一只眼，断了一条胳膊，疯老婆死后和简爱在一起。）
圣约翰——简爱的表兄。（追求简爱,但理由只是让简·爱适合做一位传教士的妻子，成为他的助手）（一个人去探险了）
里德太太——简·爱的舅妈，对简·爱并不公平。（后死）
约翰——里德太太的儿子，暴躁、惹是生非，小时候经常欺负简·爱。（已死）
海伦－－简·爱在罗沃德慈善学校的好友学校的好友。（死于瘟疫）
戴安娜和玛丽－－简爱的表姐。（圣约翰的胞妹）
爱丽丝·费尔法克斯－－罗切斯特的女管家。
阿黛尔－－罗切斯特旧情人的女儿。（罗切斯特是她的监护人，简·爱的学生）
英格拉姆小姐——长得美丽动人的贵族小姐，罗切斯特先生的追求者，但不是为了爱，而是钱。
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
展开全部
Edward Rochester called Jane his "faerie," his "elf," and accused her of "waiting for her people.... The men in green" the night she first encountered him. Indeed, in his adaptation of Jane Eyre he was not mistaken, for the entire production has a quality of magic about it.
If any actor or actress could be said to be born to play a certain character, that adage must apply to Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. The chemistry between them as the two stars of this lavish BBC production is nothing short of magical: their relationship is alive with passion and the fiery conflict of two tormented souls imprisoned by Fate and the morals of their time.
The story is a classic one: Jane Eyre, an unloved orphan is sent to school, where she is educated in a strict, cruel manner, there growing to adulthood learning little of life in the world. When her only friend marries, Jane advertises, and is accepted as governess to the ward of rich, enigmatic Edward Fairfax Rochester. From their first meeting in Hay Lane, where Jane "bewitches" his horse, there is between them an unspoken bond of kinship that slowly blossoms into true love and devotion.
After what appeared to be a brief engagement to the Honourable Miss Blanche Ingram, whom all the county expects him to marry, Rochester mysteriously calls off his marriage plans, and proposes to Jane, the only woman who is his equal - who could be his best earthly companion. At the altar, however, it is tragically revealed that Rochester already has a wife, still living: he is forced by this revelation to lead Jane, and those who would judge him harshly, back to Thornfield Hall, where he unhesitatingly and bitterly shows them the lunatic his father, without Edward's prior knowledge, arranged for him to marry.
Realizing her position is now untenable, Jane flees, nearly dying of hunger and lack of shelter, before she is befriended by a clergyman and his two sisters. It is subsequently found that Jane is related to this family, as their mother was Jane's father's sister. When their uncle dies, leaving Jane his entire fortune, she divides it equally among the four of them, and prepares to lead a close and affectionate life within the small family unit.
It is St. John Rivers, the clergyman, who unsettles Jane, by offering her marriage, and requesting her to accompany him to India, where he has decided to make a new life for himself as a missionary. Believing Mr. Rochester lost to her forever, Jane finally and reluctantly accepts his proposal, only to psychically hear Rochester's voice calling to her.
Abandoning St. John, Jane rushes back to Thornfield Hall, where she discovers, to her great horror, it had burned nearly to the ground. The innkeeper, a former butler at the house, informs her that Rochester was nearly killed in the fire while unsuccessfully attempting to save the life of his lunatic wife, who, it was later learned, had set the blaze. While he did not die, Rochester lost his left hand and eye, the right eye being so badly inflamed as to render him almost totally blind.
Jane hurries to Rochester, at a remote piece of property, where she discovers him broken down and dispirited, believing Jane to be forever lost to him, and suffering from the physical punishments God has inflicted upon him for trying to fly in the face of morality. They are reunited, and after he proposes again - now a man free to do so - they are married.
This 239-minute production is incredibly faithful to the novel, differing in but few, minor points: it is practically stated in the movie that Rochester is the father of Adele, whom he refers to as his ward, while in the text, the question of fatherhood is left open; Adele's mother, a French opera dancer, is alluded to be his only mistress, while Bronte lists three; the passage in the Bible St. John reads before Jane tentatively accepts his proposal of marriage is different (and quite improved); then, most significantly, is Jane's end narration. Here she states, "Edward regained the sight of one eye just before our first child was born." In Charlotte Bronte's novel, the line is, "just before our first son was born." This sensitive change from "son" to "child" completes the love story, becoming the finishing touch which makes this production truly immortal, and all-inclusive.
The supporting cast is excellent: the locations capture the feel of the early 1800's, drawing the viewer into the bleak, grim world of Lowood Institution, then into the splendor of Thornfield Hall. But the uniqueness of this Jane Eyre, that which sets it apart from any adaptation that went before or came after, are the performances of Dalton and Clarke. Despite the fact that she is not "plain," and he is handsome, the two actors lend their bodies and voices to the characters, making them real beyond a shadow of a doubt. Every moment they are on screen together is arresting, from their initial contact, to the end credits.
Several scenes that stand out come to mind: Jane has just saved Rochester from being badly burned, most likely fatally, and tells him she must return to her room. He holds onto her hands; every time she attempts to pull away, he makes as though to let her, then reneges, finally compelling her to use the ploy of saying she hears the housekeeper stirring. One can readily imagine the resolve of Zelah Clarke's Jane melting, and Rochester never letting her go.
There is a beautiful, poignant moment when Rochester first proposes to Jane by baring his soul to her, allowing her to look, not into his eyes, but into his soul, where he reveals not the worldly exterior and the miseries with which life has saddled him, but the true, pure being beneath. When she accepts him, they embrace: their magic and love are palpable. Here, indeed, are two kindred souls uniting. It is a moment of beauty rarely captured by any two actors, and causes the events that follow almost too tragic to bear.
There is the delightful scene after Jane must ask for a leave of absence, and Dalton "gets the giggles" twice, the second time after accusing Jane of being "niggardly." It is a professional and magical moment, watching Clarke struggle to maintain a straight face as they continue, with Dalton grinning mischievously for most of the remainder of the scene. Again, when Rochester must confront Jane after his previous marriage has been exposed, the deep, abiding sadness of his youth, the moral depths to which he has fallen are heart-rending. Jane's refusal to go away with him (specifically chronicled in the book to emphasize the correctness of this decision) just barely holds up here, for you cannot believe Dalton's Rochester would eventually fall out of love with Jane for becoming his mistress, rather than his wife.
Throughout the entire production, the viewer identifies with both the main characters, feeling their hopes, aspirations, confusion, jealousy, and eventually, their love. Had the movie not provided us with a happy ending (despite the Gothic penalty Rochester is forced to pay for attempting to break the rules of morality), viewers would be compelled to demand Dalton and Clarke reprise their roles for a re-shoot. Never were two characters meant more for each other; never have two actors captured these sentiments so beautifully and so sincerely.
Thus, Jane Eyre is a classic story, enduring both as a novel, and as a film adaptation (or, in this case, video), presenting a rare instance of allowing the reader to lay down the novel and move from the printed word to vivid, arresting performances, or, in reverse, to go from this exquisite production to the book with no disappointments in either interpretation or content. If anything, the novel becomes more "visible," moving and unique, for now the reader will irrevocably see and hear Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton in their masterful and passionate living and breathing characters of Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester.
If any actor or actress could be said to be born to play a certain character, that adage must apply to Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. The chemistry between them as the two stars of this lavish BBC production is nothing short of magical: their relationship is alive with passion and the fiery conflict of two tormented souls imprisoned by Fate and the morals of their time.
The story is a classic one: Jane Eyre, an unloved orphan is sent to school, where she is educated in a strict, cruel manner, there growing to adulthood learning little of life in the world. When her only friend marries, Jane advertises, and is accepted as governess to the ward of rich, enigmatic Edward Fairfax Rochester. From their first meeting in Hay Lane, where Jane "bewitches" his horse, there is between them an unspoken bond of kinship that slowly blossoms into true love and devotion.
After what appeared to be a brief engagement to the Honourable Miss Blanche Ingram, whom all the county expects him to marry, Rochester mysteriously calls off his marriage plans, and proposes to Jane, the only woman who is his equal - who could be his best earthly companion. At the altar, however, it is tragically revealed that Rochester already has a wife, still living: he is forced by this revelation to lead Jane, and those who would judge him harshly, back to Thornfield Hall, where he unhesitatingly and bitterly shows them the lunatic his father, without Edward's prior knowledge, arranged for him to marry.
Realizing her position is now untenable, Jane flees, nearly dying of hunger and lack of shelter, before she is befriended by a clergyman and his two sisters. It is subsequently found that Jane is related to this family, as their mother was Jane's father's sister. When their uncle dies, leaving Jane his entire fortune, she divides it equally among the four of them, and prepares to lead a close and affectionate life within the small family unit.
It is St. John Rivers, the clergyman, who unsettles Jane, by offering her marriage, and requesting her to accompany him to India, where he has decided to make a new life for himself as a missionary. Believing Mr. Rochester lost to her forever, Jane finally and reluctantly accepts his proposal, only to psychically hear Rochester's voice calling to her.
Abandoning St. John, Jane rushes back to Thornfield Hall, where she discovers, to her great horror, it had burned nearly to the ground. The innkeeper, a former butler at the house, informs her that Rochester was nearly killed in the fire while unsuccessfully attempting to save the life of his lunatic wife, who, it was later learned, had set the blaze. While he did not die, Rochester lost his left hand and eye, the right eye being so badly inflamed as to render him almost totally blind.
Jane hurries to Rochester, at a remote piece of property, where she discovers him broken down and dispirited, believing Jane to be forever lost to him, and suffering from the physical punishments God has inflicted upon him for trying to fly in the face of morality. They are reunited, and after he proposes again - now a man free to do so - they are married.
This 239-minute production is incredibly faithful to the novel, differing in but few, minor points: it is practically stated in the movie that Rochester is the father of Adele, whom he refers to as his ward, while in the text, the question of fatherhood is left open; Adele's mother, a French opera dancer, is alluded to be his only mistress, while Bronte lists three; the passage in the Bible St. John reads before Jane tentatively accepts his proposal of marriage is different (and quite improved); then, most significantly, is Jane's end narration. Here she states, "Edward regained the sight of one eye just before our first child was born." In Charlotte Bronte's novel, the line is, "just before our first son was born." This sensitive change from "son" to "child" completes the love story, becoming the finishing touch which makes this production truly immortal, and all-inclusive.
The supporting cast is excellent: the locations capture the feel of the early 1800's, drawing the viewer into the bleak, grim world of Lowood Institution, then into the splendor of Thornfield Hall. But the uniqueness of this Jane Eyre, that which sets it apart from any adaptation that went before or came after, are the performances of Dalton and Clarke. Despite the fact that she is not "plain," and he is handsome, the two actors lend their bodies and voices to the characters, making them real beyond a shadow of a doubt. Every moment they are on screen together is arresting, from their initial contact, to the end credits.
Several scenes that stand out come to mind: Jane has just saved Rochester from being badly burned, most likely fatally, and tells him she must return to her room. He holds onto her hands; every time she attempts to pull away, he makes as though to let her, then reneges, finally compelling her to use the ploy of saying she hears the housekeeper stirring. One can readily imagine the resolve of Zelah Clarke's Jane melting, and Rochester never letting her go.
There is a beautiful, poignant moment when Rochester first proposes to Jane by baring his soul to her, allowing her to look, not into his eyes, but into his soul, where he reveals not the worldly exterior and the miseries with which life has saddled him, but the true, pure being beneath. When she accepts him, they embrace: their magic and love are palpable. Here, indeed, are two kindred souls uniting. It is a moment of beauty rarely captured by any two actors, and causes the events that follow almost too tragic to bear.
There is the delightful scene after Jane must ask for a leave of absence, and Dalton "gets the giggles" twice, the second time after accusing Jane of being "niggardly." It is a professional and magical moment, watching Clarke struggle to maintain a straight face as they continue, with Dalton grinning mischievously for most of the remainder of the scene. Again, when Rochester must confront Jane after his previous marriage has been exposed, the deep, abiding sadness of his youth, the moral depths to which he has fallen are heart-rending. Jane's refusal to go away with him (specifically chronicled in the book to emphasize the correctness of this decision) just barely holds up here, for you cannot believe Dalton's Rochester would eventually fall out of love with Jane for becoming his mistress, rather than his wife.
Throughout the entire production, the viewer identifies with both the main characters, feeling their hopes, aspirations, confusion, jealousy, and eventually, their love. Had the movie not provided us with a happy ending (despite the Gothic penalty Rochester is forced to pay for attempting to break the rules of morality), viewers would be compelled to demand Dalton and Clarke reprise their roles for a re-shoot. Never were two characters meant more for each other; never have two actors captured these sentiments so beautifully and so sincerely.
Thus, Jane Eyre is a classic story, enduring both as a novel, and as a film adaptation (or, in this case, video), presenting a rare instance of allowing the reader to lay down the novel and move from the printed word to vivid, arresting performances, or, in reverse, to go from this exquisite production to the book with no disappointments in either interpretation or content. If anything, the novel becomes more "visible," moving and unique, for now the reader will irrevocably see and hear Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton in their masterful and passionate living and breathing characters of Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester.
本回答被提问者采纳
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
展开全部
自私 冷漠 贪婪 虚无
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
更多回答（2）
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
