Less than two pages into this "gentle" adaptation of my favorite romance, I knew it wasn't going to work for me. I continued to read, but not for long. It is virtually impossible to simplify to this extent without losing, or worse, changing the author's meaning. Compare the following quotations:
From the original: "...dreadful to me was the coming home in the raw twilight, with nipped fingers and toes, and a heart saddened by the chidings of Bessie, the nurse and humbled by the consciousness of my physical inferiority to Eliza, John, and Georgiana Reed..."
With help from Mr. Josephson: "It was dreadful coming home to Gateshead Hall in the raw twilight, with nipped fingers and toes, to be humiliated by my cousins -- Eliza, John, and Georgiana Reed."
Being humbled is not the same as being humiliated. Here Jane speaks of her internal world, her own comparison of her plain little person to the worldly beauty and fashionable attire of her cousins. In fact, much of what makes this book classic is the depth of Jane's internal world, and that is what is so lacking in this "improved" version.
Like another reviewer, I also read "Jane Eyre" when I was eleven, and I adored every bit of it, but I started to read "Pride and Prejudice" the same year and tossed it after fifty pages. I tried it again in high school and loved it. When I was nine, I read every Nancy Drew I could get my hands on; at ten, it was horse books. During the years of heavy required reading, my pleasure was science fiction; now, with a little time to spare I'm visiting some of the Dickens I missed along the way. My point is, people change. Classic literature shouldn't.