Wuthering Heights

[verybaddmom]

all righty then. i have almost finished this book and have seen through searches on this forum that many many people have read it, although less have enjoyed it . i was hoping then, that someone here would be willing to discuss it with me.

personally, i have found the book to be more engaging than i had expected. once i started it, it was nowhere near as difficult to pick up as say, Jane Eyre. somehow i expected them to be the same, although i guess that was judging the book by its family of authors. anyhow, i found Heathcliff to be a difficult character to relate to: through the whole story i havent found a way to understand or define his personality. Catherine was a bit of a whiner and far too melodramatic for my tastes, although her daughter turned out quite a bit different, although from the same tree.
what i am really curious about, though, is the character of Nelly. she seems many-sided and both sane and not. i think that her voice as (secondary) narrator was not very reliable in the recounting of the story, but also she seemed to interfere with the events as they occurred.

so let me know what you think, or thought or whatever, K?

[Kiwi Shelf]

Wuthering Heights is the next book I intend to read, so if this doesn't get full blown discussion, I will probably want to when I am done.

[Koa]

It's a book I loved and hated... I didn't like it when I started it, then when I painfully reached the middle I got involved and read most of the other half in one day... Still, it sort of irritated me, but I didn't know why... Then we analysed it at school and also at a reading group, and I started to feel some sort of love, but at the same time the irritation grew... I'd so much like to read it again to see what I can think and get this time..

I think I liked Nelly (btw I think that was one of the first experiments with changes of narrator or something...I remember something like that from school, but now I know that Frankenstein has many narrating characters too and it's older... Maybe tomorrow I'll take those old notes out and have a look :)).
I think I didn't like Heathcliff cos he's arrogant...

[baddad]

Heathcliffe is a complete cad...a cynical, cruel, blackhearted, dispicable human being who has only one joy in life; causing as much pain as possible to those coming in contact with him, a man who while shown a kindness early in his life has chosen to focus only on his pains. Heathcliff is less a man and more a wicked demon haunting the downs. To say his heart is made of stone would be to lighten his temperment, for a stone may be cold but not purposely cruel. A cad in all respects. And he loves his power over others as much as he hates himself for being so weak a man as to lack neccessary restraint in his hates and revenges.

[trismegistus]

Fascinating book in that I like reading it even though I despise or hold in contempt every last character in it. (Those that are not outright morally reprehensible in their selfishness are hypocrites, weaklings, or terminally stupid.) Part of it is Bronte's prose which is much more muscular than her elder sister's. Emily's writing is far less refined, and I appreciate that; I find it cleaner if rougher.

Like you, VBM, I found Nelly Dean a tough nut to crack. Her actions too frequently contradict her stated feelings, and for a simple, straight-thinking country girl, she often lapses into moments of real foolishness with regard to Heathcliff. (e.g. How many times does she walk into a trap of Heathcliff's when she has already shown the clarity of vision to understand that it is, indeed, a trap?)

[simon]

VBM, I agree with you on the opinion of it being more engaging than Jane Eyre, I am under the impression that this is due to Heathcliff's character, which is dark and more enticing due to his cruelty. Jane Erye is just an uninteresting character. But in the long run I found the book a bit boring, only the authors ability to make the reader dislike every last character and keep reading is hwat make sit good, the story itself is not altogether that intersesting. I only kept reading to find out if I could dislike the characters more.

[verybaddmom]

excellent point, simon. that may actually have been what kept me going too, although i agree with trismegistus' observation about the writing style as well. i still dont understand what the heck happened here. the characters were in no way endearing. i dont think i liked a single solitary one of them (although i didnt actually despise isabella). i had a hate on from the beginning for joseph and his vernacular and virtually everything else about him. oh i think i liked Catherine's father, but he sort of died early on, so that didnt help. i am still trying to sort nelly out though, i just dont get her. *walks away scratching head*

[Raven]

I had to read Wuthering Heights for my A-levels last year. I was dreading it - I was sure it would either be sappy or boring.



I was completely wrong.


I can see why it was Emily's only novel though - she must have put so much of her thoughts and of herself into it, it would have drained her completely.

I found Heathcliff repulsive yet attractive, and I sympathised with him at the same moment as loathing him. I didn't feel any particular empathy for Cathy 1 - I thought that, by being strong-willed and spoilt, she had led to her own downfall - but I did sympathise with Cathy 2, forced to clear up her mothers mess.

[Koa]

I like the point about the characters being all hateful...maybe that's why I hated the book while finding it sort of ingenious and not despisable at the same time...

baddad's comment on Heathcliff in some sentences seems the description of the bastard I have a crush on... :D :eek:

[verybaddmom]

what about hareton (sp?) anyone have any opinion on him? he's nice, he's mean, he's nice, he's mean, he's nice again. is he perhaps bi-polar? what a wonky bunch of folks....

[Jessika]

I loved this book when reading it, because I think it 'shows' real and current situations.

Before talking about Cathy 1, I want to 'defend' Heathcliff (at least in the first part of the book)
We have to take into account that he is a boy without family, without a name, so, he has no identity to refer to, no position in society. Moreover, he is gipsy (so he forms part of 'the other'. This is currently happening now -at least in Europe: a lots of inmigrants, dark skin (as Heathcliff) are feared by 'native people'.
People don't 'want' to know or even meet 'the other', so they can't understand 'them' (their way of thinking, acting, cultural background, etc).
The next psycologic step when you dont want to understand somebody's culture or life is a)avoiding them or b)hate them.
Well, I think Heathcliff feels this hate (remember Hindley, for example).
The only people who feel him as a 'normal' boy is Cathy 1 (but only when she is a child) and her father, who dies. Then, he remains alone, and hated, aaand 'betrayed' by Cathy 1 (here is when he begins to hate too)

Now, I go with Cathy 1, why does she change in relation to Heathcliff?
Again, we have to take into account the background context (Victorian period).
Cathy 1 can't construct herself as a woman of her time because of Heathcliff.
I mean, the love she feels for him is in conflict with her desire of becoming a conventional victorian woman: getting a position in life.
She can't achieve this by becoming Heathcliff's wife because as said before, he has no name, no properties, he has nothing, no position in life..

Cathy's soul has two parts:
- reason or conventionality (which tells her to marry Edgar Linton and construct herself as a conventional victorian woman)
- and nature or pasion (which tells her to be free and let her wild nature grow and be with Heathcliff, without duties, out of the conventions)

The conflict between these two parts of Cathy 1 make her 'die' because she isn't able to limit herself to only one part of it, whether it be her reason or nature, the social or the individual.
She can't decide between these two parts, she wants the two things: get a position in life and be with Heathcliff.

Now, this happens continually in life!! I love this book!!!

(ok, sorry fot the length and way of writing!! )

[Koa]

Cool Jessika, I like your post, nice analysis.

A bit of intertextuality now... song Wuthering Heights by Kate Bush:

Out on the wiley, windy moors
We'd roll and fall in green.
You had a temper like my jealousy:
Too hot, too greedy.
How could you leave me,
When I needed to possess you?
I hated you. I loved you, too.

Bad dreams in the night.
They told me I was going to lose the fight,
Leave behind my wuthering, wuthering
Wuthering Heights.

Heathcliff, it's me-- I'm Cathy.
I've come home now so cold!
Let me in-a-your window.

Heathcliff, it's me-- I'm Cathy.
I've come home now so cold!
Let me in-a-your window.

Ooh, it gets dark! It gets lonely,
On the other side from you.
I pine a lot. I find a lot
Falls through without you.
I'm coming back, love.
Cruel Heathcliff, my one dream,
My only master.

Too long I roam in the night.
I'm coming back to his side, to put it right.
I'm coming home to wuthering, wuthering,
Wuthering Heights,

Heathcliff, it's me-- I'm Cathy.
I've come home now cold!
Let me in-a-your window.

Heathcliff, it's me-- I'm Cathy.
I've come home now so cold!
Let me in-a-your window.

Ooh! Let me have it.
Let me grab your soul away.
Ooh! Let me have it.
Let me grab your soul away.
You know it's me--Cathy!

Heathcliff, it's me-- I'm Cathy.
I've come home. I'm so cold!
Let me in-a-your window.

Heathcliff, it's me-- I'm Cathy.
I've come home now so cold!
Let me in-a-your window.

Heathcliff, it's me-- I'm Cathy.
I've come home now so cold!

There's also a song by The Smiths that mentions Hindley and the moors, even if it doesn't seem to have a more direct relation to the book, or at least not one I understand...

[verybaddmom]

that was a really good interpretation Jessika. i think the thing of it is for me, is that in our society we encourage people to be accepting and good to one another and it rarely happens, even for those that are not "other" to some degree. but i cannot condone treating others badly because you have once been treated badly. there has to be a point in one's life at which one takes responsibility for what they "OWN" meaning, only what is their fault, or what they have caused and leave the rest behind. that point comes where you have to say "um..stuff happens, but i am who i am" and not treat people how you HAVE been treated, but how you WANT to be treated. i was unable to cut heathcliff any slack because of his prior treatment. i fully expect that someone will argue with me. i hope so anyway.
however, i do agree with your analysis of Catherine(1) though. very much.
Koa, that was totally cool. i had no idea that existed. i have to try and find the song now, thank you

i am still wondering what you people thought of the character, Hareton....
any insights?

[Jessika]

Sorry, i cannot quote properly!!

[QUOTE=verybaddmom] but i cannot condone treating others badly because you have once been treated badly. there has to be a point in one's life at which one takes responsibility for what they "OWN" meaning, only what is their fault, or what they have caused and leave the rest behind. that point comes where you have to say "um..stuff happens, but i am who i am" and not treat people how you HAVE been treated, but how you WANT to be treated.QUOTE]

You're right, i agree with you. However, how many cases do you know of people treating badly other people because they suffered themselves bad relations during their childhood (violations, etc)? (i'm not justifying it, i am only saying that your childhood affects you for ever. Sometimes you can overcome it, but there are people who can't and have a grudge (rancor?is it well said?). So this rancor becomes part of their personality.

Being hated -now talking about Heathcliff-, makes you growth with this sense of unfair world, so you don't mind treating badly other people, because you think and believe this world is so and behaves like that, like it is the normal way of doing things, doesn't matter if it's well or bad done, it's just the way to carry out your life (with rancor).

wow, any psycologists here to explain more accuratly all this?? i'm very interested in this theme, as the violence against women in Spain is growing on and on. I would like to understand this behaviour.
I know it has to do -at least- with the women incorporation to the laboral life, however, if someone could explain all this better..

Verybaddmom, I almost don't remember Hareton, i will have to refresh my mind :lol: but you will get an answer soon!! (talking like a sargent) :lol: :)

[verybaddmom]

all right jessika, i see what you are saying and i understand it perfectly.
i have actually taken pen and paper and drawn out our family history for my son (he's 12 years old) and showed him unhealthy lifestyles and problems in our family relationships, and then shown him his place in that tree and told him "the cycles stop here, with you and me"
the thing is i have a very low tolerance for people who spend their lives blaming their problems on other people. frankly, i think that is where the majority of our social problems come from, that inability to accept responsibility for our own actions.
i understand that your childhood experiences do affect your future personality, but i also think that to be a good strong person, one has to..MUST....overcome any adversity and reform themselves accordingly. everyone has a story. EVERYONE. and i cant say that just because i have a story, and that the world was not always kind to me, i am going to go out and perpetuate that abuse.
also, i dont understand that cruelty in heathcliff because i would think that if a person were hurt and wronged, then that innate understanding of how that affects a person would encourage him to reform his behaviour to prevent damaging others in the same way he was damaged. although, i guess its not always the case. my father was raised in Canada following the second world war, and being born Jewish, he was victim of much discrimination and poor treatment. however, as an adult, he is one of the biggest bigots i could ever meet. and i have NEVER understood this. i came home once with a black boyfriend, and he nearly took my head off. i would have thought that having once been so terribly treated due to a socially percieved "difference" he would be more tolerant of others....hmmm...not so.

i think what it boils down to for me, is that i dont have any respect for heathcliff in any form, as i cant view one who is unable to get past childhood issues as strong character-ed. and for me a strong character is one of the things i respect most about a person.

EDIT: also, Jessika, i wouldnt worry too much about the quote function, i have yet to use it properly either, but i dont suppose that makes my posts any less readable...
*she hopes*

[verybaddmom]

and also......
i think heathcliff did have some influence, while not strong and long lasting re: kind treatment. its not that every single person he ever contacted was cruel to him. the problem is, that MOST were. Catherine's father was very good to him, to the point of angering his biological children. heathcliff was treated well by SOMEONE, and that alone could have been a model for him. if every single solitary person he encountered was consistently harsh and cruel to him, then perhaps...maybe i could understand a bit more. however, he did experience some kindness. granted, not much. but for me enough to be able to understand the difference and recollect how it felt to be treated as such..you know? and although, catherine did eventually betray him (or did she?) she did at one or more points treat him well, with kindness and compassion and friendship....

[Jessika]

I really agree with you Verybaddmom, you are right.. that would be or should be the normal way to behave. Unfortunately, there are people who are too affected and they aren't able to overcome the problems (i guess blaming the others for your acts and the incapability to overcome problems make you be inmature (is it inmature?) )

i don't know, according to my teacher, Heathcliff is dihumanized by Bronte. Maybe that's why he is so ununderstood. In the second part of the book he behaves really badly (at that point i cant justify him anymore.. i like to find any possibility in any problem i find, i try to understand everybody's behaviour, even though they treat me badly too.. but, at that point, i can't find a good reason enough for Heathcliff to act like he does)

am.. I don't remember right now, but there is one person in this forum whose signature explains exactly what Heathcliff -for me- experiences. It's something like: fear turns into hate, hate into (ah! i cant remember, sorry, but it's close to that) fear>hate> (i'm going to look for the signature, it is said by Yoda, by the way :lol: )
I'm going to look for it..

[Jessika]

I'm sorry i can't find that signature :brickwall :confused:
i will try again later :rolleyes:

[nome1486]

Max Whittaker's signature: "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering." Interesting connection to the book, although (:blush:) I've never read it.

And in answer to your question, it's "immature" (don't know if you really wanted to know, but I thought I'd tell you)

[verybaddmom]

i guess blaming the others for your acts and the incapability to overcome problems make you be inmature (is it inmature?)

i think while the word you were searching for was immature, i find it just weak. weak spirit, weak character, weak minded. i am so not tolerant i guess

[Jessika]

Max Whittaker's signature: "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."

And in answer to your question, it's "immature" (don't know if you really wanted to know, but I thought I'd tell you)

(2nd try to post this message ><!!! :crash: :lol: )

Ok, here i go, again.

Thanks nome1486 for your help, yeah, it is Max Whittaker's signature :) (i like it very much)
Thanks, also, for the correction :) (that's a good way for me to memorize my grammar and vocabulary mistakes :p )

Verybaddmom, I dont think you are less tolerant for considering weak better than immature ¿?¿? ( i've learnt the word, you see? :lol: )
I think weak complements immature. In fact, Heathcliff is weak because he does the easiest thing to do: keeps the hate and transforms it into rancor, instead of looking for his real character - without rancor- am i clear or am i saying things without sense? :lol: (sorry, it's late in this side of the world :lol: )

Bona nit!! (catalan)
Buenas noches!! (spanish)
Good night!!

[trismegistus]

In fact, Heathcliff is weak because he does the easiest thing to do: keeps the hate and transforms it into rancor, instead of looking for his real character
You seem to take it as a given that Heathcliff's real character isn't hateful. I don't buy that at all. We are offered a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Bronte is saying that our characters are in our nature, not in our environment; that Heathcliff is vengeful and vicious because that is his nature, not because of how he was treated by Hindley.

Catherine expresses this perfectly when she states: "Whatever our souls are made of, [Heathcliff's] and mine are the same, and Linton's is as different as a moonbeam from lightning, or frost from fire."

Ultimately Heathcliff does everything because he, like Catherine, is entirely selfish. His suffering is always what is paramount in his mind (just as Catherine's pleasure is always paramount in hers). He is, as Nellie describes him even as a child, "insensible." He does not feel the suffering of others. This is exactly what makes him so fascinating, but it also makes his actions indefensible.

[5Parker]

I was a little impatient with this book in the beginning, too, but the end makes it worthwhile. After reading it twice, it's now one of my favorite books... who could have guessed?

[Jessika]

You seem to take it as a given that Heathcliff's real character isn't hateful.

I do think his actions are hateful (in the second part of the book he has turned into a hateful man, indeed.)

However I keep thinking that your context affects you more than you would like (because we are human beings in context, not in isolation). Your personality may change with specific facts. I'm not a psychologist, but i think that if Heathcliff had not been rejected when he was a child (by certain people and then by Cathy I) his personality and behaviour would not have become so hateful. But i also think that if Heathcliff had not undergo this development, Bronte had not included this character in the book.

I do agree that in the second part, he IS hateful, but he has turn into it, he didn't was so hateful at the beginning.
Of course, hate forms part of every human being, what makes people develope it or not are their experiencies in life (and their maturity to overcome them in a way or in another). Of course hate is in our nature and certain circumstances as hate from others, fear to others, bad behaviour from others can make people develope this part of our nature.


I don't buy that at all. We are offered a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Bronte is saying that our characters are in our nature, not in our environment; that Heathcliff is vengeful and vicious because that is his nature, not because of how he was treated by Hindley.

Catherine expresses this perfectly when she states: "Whatever our souls are made of, [Heathcliff's] and mine are the same, and Linton's is as different as a moonbeam from lightning, or frost from fire.".

Hm, i dont read this fragment in the sense you are pointing. I think she means that their nature are wild, not conventional as Linton's. They have more things in common. The only thing that makes Cathy I change from Heathcliff to Linton is the conventional situation she wants to achieve (position in life, victorian context), but she loved Heathcliff (that's why she suffers so much then)


Ultimately Heathcliff does everything because he, like Catherine, is entirely selfish. His suffering is always what is paramount in his mind (just as Catherine's pleasure is always paramount in hers). He is, as Nellie describes him even as a child, "insensible." He does not feel the suffering of others. This is exactly what makes him so fascinating, but it also makes his actions indefensible.


Remember that Nelly is not a neutral part in the story (I wouldnt trust all what she says when she narrates, as she forms active part of the story, she is not an outsider character, so she has "interests" ;) i'm not sure right now, but i would say that Nelly's feelings for Heathcliff when he arrives for the first time are not so good as to be neutral.

By the way, what do you mean by "Catherine's pleasure is always paramount in hers"? :confused:

Saludos a todos!!

[trismegistus]

I think she means that their nature are wild, not conventional as Linton's.
But that's exactly my point. Ultimately they are governed by their natures. Linton's is generous and gentle and he acts that way. Heathcliff's and Catherine's are, as you say, wild. They are also selfish and frequently vindictive - and both act that way.


Remember that Nelly is not a neutral part in the story .... i would say that Nelly's feelings for Heathcliff when he arrives for the first time are not so good as to be neutral.
Agreed, she is not neutral. In fact many of her blindest, most foolish actions are done in aid of Heathcliff. As for her feelings regarding Heathcliff in her youth, remember that she is speaking to Lockwood upon reflection. Her old feelings don't matter. She is now an older woman judging the boy Heathcliff was, and given her honesty concerning her own poor treatment of Heathcliff upon his arrival, the reader is probably intended to trust her read on his boyhood character.


By the way, what do you mean by "Catherine's pleasure is always paramount in hers"?
What pleases Catherine most is the satisfaction of her own desires.

[penguinsail]

Part of the allure of Wuthering Heights is that the characters are not perfect. Heathcliff is cruel, but Catherine loves him and does not see while she is still young that he is cruel. How many times have you actually seen this in life with someone you know?
Catherine wants one man but cannot choose him because of societal standards. This also is not just a thing of the past. I have known many women who wanted one man but would not go after him because of fear of what their friends/parents/church would think if they did so.
The story is told from Nelly's point of view after a long period of time has past, so we can infer from this simple fact that there are things that are exagerated in the tale, and emotions that were going on in the other characters' minds that we cannot possibly know about.
The characters may not be ones that we can necesarily relate to in all ways, but that might be because they are not simply stock characters. They do not always act as we expect them to. They are imperfect and inconsistent as all humans are. And this book, as in real life, has an ending that is not the fairy tale ending that one would expect.
The allure of this book is the imperfections of the characters and our inability to relate to them on their every action.

[frozenlight]

i read the book some years ago and it's not so fresh in my memory, i don't remember some of the characters (for instance, who the hell is hareton?), so i won't try to make an analysis. what struck me about wh is the fact that it's quite dark, the atmosphere is heavy (?.. not sure about the word... dammit, you get the point) at some points and the characters are far from ordinary when you think about the period. i remember finding heathcliff interresting and at some points i quite sympathised with him. and i hated cathy for marrying linton... why, if boredom and stiffness had a face, it would definitely be his, while heathcliff is restless and energetic.
all in all, i think it's the best book of this kind and period i've read. i mean, compare it to jane eyre or pride and prejudice :rolleyes:

[penguinsail]

I personally think it is sacrilege to compare wuthering heights to her sisters' writings or any other from that time period...part of what makes it interesting is the fact that the characters are different from the normal stereotypes of the era, but that makes it realistic because someone could very easily look at the writing of today and think that all of us are shallow, etc. which is not an accurate portrayal of how humans actually work. These characters show their humanity and they stray from what is socially expected of them just as people do today and have all through history.

[Scheherazade]

I also think that Wuthering Heights is very different from its contemporaries. The characters do not mind showing their feelings and passion; what's more, they act upon those... Like penguinsail points out, this is something against the norms of the society. It is a unique book in this respect.

[trismegistus]

I also think that Wuthering Heights is very different from its contemporaries. The characters do not mind showing their feelings and passion; what's more, they act upon those... Like penguinsail points out, this is something against the norms of the society. It is a unique book in this respect.
But it's not unique in the Gothic tradition; it's typical. What we have here are a number of characters, several of whom show all the typical traits of people of "sensibility." Don't fool yourself. Heathcliff is as much a type as any in Chaucer.

[Yorkie]

There's also a song by The Smiths that mentions Hindley and the moors, even if it doesn't seem to have a more direct relation to the book, or at least not one I understand

Koa, the song you are referring to, Suffer the Little Child had nothing to do with Wuthering Heights what-so-ever - it was about the 'Moors murderer' Myra Hindley and her victims.

[Yorkie]

There's also a song by The Smiths that mentions Hindley and the moors, even if it doesn't seem to have a more direct relation to the book, or at least not one I understand


Koa, the song you are referring to, Suffer the Little Child had nothing to do with Wuthering Heights what-so-ever - it was about the 'Moors murderer' Myra Hindley and her victims.

[Bandini]

:thumbs_up Hello, new to this forum. Late to the discussion, and only skimmed, but I think that, with Heathcliffe, Bronte wants us to hold on to the idea that there must must be something good there - especially as he's a lover, a romantic on some level; although the lover-romantic/obsessive-stalker line is somewhat blurred! Or at least Bronte plays with the readers good nature by using this device? I think that Hareton's 'mean'/'not mean' t'ing, lets the reader see that Heathcliffe is not innately bad - suggesting that 'mean' is a social and psychological construction?
Although Heathcliffe is a complete bastard, I feel that, as with Macbeth, the reader feels some sympathy, because they know that the protaganists are hurting themselves as much as anybody else. Both of them have come to believe "For mine own good, all causes shalt give way' , not fully realising that this can only lead to suffering.

N.B. For future reference, I can be somewhat forthright, and I like to 'get a reaction', as I enjoy verbal cut and thust. I never intend to offend. Just so you know! ;)