Metacognition: Jane Eyre

While reading Jane Eyre, my thinking has not really stood out as different from other books that I've read. I thought it was a good book, and therefore read it in much the same way as the books I read for fun (though with a little more attention to detail, due to reading quizzes). Because of that, it's kind of hard to analyze my approach to reading the book--I don't really have anything to compare it to.
On the other hand, I do think my reactions to the story were different than a lot of the class. I remember that after Rochester was introduced, many people immediately disliked him, thinking him rude, arrogant and obnoxious. Though I agreed with them to some extent, I did not really dislike Rochester--though he didn't try to be polite, he was also not intentionally rude or arrogant. He just bluntly spoke his mind, without worrying about what others would think of him--much like Jane, as seen when she bluntly tells him he is not handsome.
I think I saw Jane somewhat differently as well. I think a lot of people were frustrated by Jane's desire to submit to other characters. I think a lot of people felt like it was based on an old-fashioned view of women as the weaker sex--people who could only be happy when a strong, dominating man was in control. Again, there was some truth to that, but Jane often showed some strength as well, defying strong characters like Rochester and St. John when they tried to control her.
For situations like these, I think I did think about the book differently from those I had read in the past. The characters and events in the book didn't really fit into typical patterns of fiction--they couldn't be easily forced into the archetypes we learned last year. In that way, it made me think more by challenging me to figure out what each element of the story meant myself.