The Surprising Books Charlotte Brontë Loved and the Ones She Couldn’t Stand

We often imagine that great authors admire all the classics around them, but Charlotte Brontë, best known for Jane Eyre, had very strong and sometimes unexpected opinions about the books she read. Through her letters and personal writings, we see that she openly praised some novels while strongly criticizing others. Her reactions were honest and passionate, revealing how seriously she took storytelling, imagination, and emotional depth in literature.

Among the novels she admired was Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray. She appreciated its sharp social commentary and the unforgettable character of Becky Sharp, a clever and ambitious woman navigating the strict social world of Victorian England.

Brontë also admired David Copperfield by Charles Dickens, praising its emotional depth and the way Dickens portrayed the struggles and growth of the main character from childhood to adulthood.

Another novel she respected was Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, which deeply moved readers with its powerful story about slavery and human suffering.

Other favorites included Mary Barton by Elizabeth Gaskell, which explores the harsh lives of factory workers in industrial England, Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, a powerful anti-slavery novel that moved readers across the world, and Madeleine, a Tale of Auvergne by Julia Kavanagh, a historical story about the life of a peasant girl in France. These works impressed Brontë with their emotional intensity, realism, and social insight.

However, Brontë’s opinions were not always positive. She famously disliked Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, describing it as lacking passion and imagination. While many readers love the novel for its wit and social observation, Brontë felt it was too restrained and emotionally distant.

She also disliked The Emigrant Family: or, The Story of an Australian Settler by Alexander Harris, feeling that it merely copied reality without creativity.

Other novels she criticized include Oliver Weld by Harriet Martineau, Modeste Mignon by Honoré de Balzac, and Azeth the Egyptian by Eliza Lynn Linton. In her view, these books either lacked originality, emotional depth, or the imaginative power she believed great literature should have.

She also found little interest in The Caxtons: A Family Picture by Edward Bulwer-Lytton, believing it did not offer the intensity or depth she valued in literature.

Somehow, these strong opinions tell us that even literary legends have their own unique tastes and sometimes they disagree with what the world later calls a masterpiece.

Sources: https://www.mentalfloss.com/literature/authors/novels-charlotte-bronte-loved-loathed

Also Read:

Can Nabokov’s “Lolita” be Read as a Love Story?

Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita can be known as one of the most misread novels in modern literature. Often mislabelled as a “love story,” Lolita never fails to spark discomfort, expose the horrors of human nature, and provoke debate and moral outrage. Yet, to ask whether Lolita can be read as a love story is not merely a question of interpretation; it is a test of how carefully one reads and how responsibly one responds to narrative voices.

Thus, the short answer is no: Lolita is not a love story but the novel is deliberately written to sound like one.

Nabokov employs Humbert Humbert, the novel’s narrator, with dazzling linguistic brilliance. His language use, prose, and poems are lyrical and witty yet emotionally manipulative. Through carefully chosen words, Humbert not only charms the novel’s characters but also attempts to manipulate readers into sympathizing with him and his acts of abuse.

Image credits: The Guardian

Even though this manipulation feels intentional, Nabokov himself once stated that Lolita has “no moral in tow,” meaning that he is not preaching a lesson or explicitly telling readers what is right or wrong. Yet, it is widely agreed that the novel is profoundly ethical in its construction. The way the story is structured, the language is used, and the perspective is chosen forces readers to confront uncomfortable truths about manipulation, abuse, and self-deception at their peak.

By allowing the narrator to tell his own story, Nabokov exposes how eloquence can disguise cruelty, and how literature, brilliance, charm, and aesthetics can be used to justify the unjustifiable.

So, if Lolita feels like a love story to some readers, it is because Humbert wants it to feel that way.

Love, in its most basic sense, is rooted in consent, mutual recognition, and the genuine valuing of one another’s autonomy. Humbert’s feelings for Dolores Haze, whom he renames “Lolita”, meet none of these characteristics. Instead, what he experiences is obsession, possession and control, filtered through self-pity.

Dolores, on the other hand, is tragically denied a voice, leaving readers to know her only through Humbert’s narration. This minimizes her pain and resistance, reframing them as flirtation and acceptance. The reader is therefore pushed to believe only the version of the events Humbert uncovers as truth.

Image credits: Daily Mail

This brings us to another crucial question: can Lolita be a love story if it were presented in the voice of Dolores, the very child Humbert harms and over whom he exerts total control?

Doubtlessly, we can say that one of Nabokov’s greatest achievements in Lolita is placing the reader in an intensely uncomfortable position. The novel does not ask us to reflect on the beauty or pain of romance and love; instead, it asks how easily we can be persuaded by beautiful language, and how often we mistake intensity for love. Readers who interpret Lolita as a tragic romance often do so by overlooking Dolores altogether. This, too, is part of the novel’s design.

One major point to remember, however, is that Nabokov does not romanticize abuse; rather, he reveals how society and readers can become complicit in doing so.

If this question unsettles you (as it should), read Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov slowly and critically, with attention to what is said and what is silenced. If reading feels difficult, watch the 1997 film adaptation with the same awareness.

The story demands reflection, not comfort.