You're walking in a forest - what do you see?

It was interesting to read a previous post comparing forests in A Midsummer Night's Dream and Romance of the Forest that said forests represent freedom from societal mores in the former and not the latter. Great connection!

To me, the forest and abandoned abbey in Romance was also freedom from societal mores... but in the totally primitive way that an anarchic collapse in society, and even reality, creates. The forest's where you go when problems preclude you from living a normal life, like when the La Mottes need to escape creditors.

Contrast the dark and terror of the forest to the section of Romance where Adeline lives with the La Lucs. It reminded me a lot of the passages of Jane Eyre where Jane lives with the Rivers siblings after running away from Rochester and Thornfield. In both books, the interlude comes after a terrifying, game-changing moment (Adeline's life in danger, Jane finds out about Bertha) and feel almost like a reprieve from the never-ending suspense and thrill. It seems like that's where the protagonist returns to a "normal" life, with a caring family and a sedate life, and away from the action.

Of course both interludes end in a rousing call to "the plot" where we see a dramatic ending. I wonder what we can make of these interludes - are they necessary for the plot, perhaps to provide a brief respite in the 7th inning to juxtapose the action before and after? Maybe there's also an interpretation that goes something like, you start from the terrible, primordial anarchy of the forest, retreat to civilization, and have to return to the wider world and own up to the deeper fears you've run from. In such a way does Adeline have to go to Paris to testify, and Jane leaves St. John Rivers for Thornfield, and so set up the respective endings.

I'm sure there's been academic readings of Romance, and Gothic novels in general, from a psychological perspective, especially in regards to archetypal psychology. (You know, the "you're walking in a forest, and you see an animal. What animal is it?" type personality tests?) Or is it anachronistic? I admit to little knowledge on this subject! Thoughts on reading it like this?