Wuthering Heights...?

[Laura Clarke]

Hi,

So I read Wuthering Heights... What an odd book.

First off all, why did Bronte make pretty much every single character not likeable? I mean, even the two central characters, Cathy and Heathcliffe (I mean, I think they were... Not Cathy so much because she was dead for the second part of the book, but anyway...) were disgusting. Heathcliffe - well, I think that that is pretty self-explanatory (abusive, cruel, insensitive, sadistic). Cathy - self-centered, mercurial, superficial. I mean, come on. Can anyone honestly tell me who the protagonist is?

And their "love?" Not appealing at all. I mean, maybe their craziness could be compatible, but the bottom line is that Cathy chose Edgar, caring more about superficial societal expectations than her own romantic feelings. Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that. I completely understand that back then, marrying outside your "status" was not really accepted, but the least Cathy could have done was not throw hissy fits after she made her decision, and face the consequences she created (which honestly weren't that bad... she had a nice house and a doting husband - that's not exactly torture). If her love for Heathcliffe was as deep as she expressed it to be, then why would she throw it all away for a superficial whim? She either is intensely in love with Heathcliffe, or isn't - she can't be both.

And even all of the other characters - gross, gross, gross. The Lintons: prissy, spoiled (Mr. Linton, I think had a kind heart, but was honestly so flat and weak that I would hardly call him "likeable"). Linton Heathcliffe: made me sick (makes sense though I guess - being the offspring of Heathcliffe and Isabel... gag) Young Cathy Linton: not bad, but lived a pretty much perfect life, so really had no reason to be too horrible. Hindley: a crazy drunk.

Can someone explain to me why these characters (namely Heathcliffe, Cathy Sr., and Hindley) turned out so badly as adults? I mean, they grew up in nice households. Did they all just have crazy genes?

This now brings me to Hareton. Honestly, I think that he is only semi-likeable character in the entire book - which is a bit of a plot hole. Despite his crazy outbursts (a result of his upbringing), he seems like a kind person, shown through his actions towards young Cathy, and his loyalty to Heathcliffe. What made him like this? He was the son of crazy Hindley, and grew up being abused by Healthcliffe - doesn't seem like a good formula to me. And yet, he ended up "better" than all of the other characters, who I believe had pretty decent upbringings - it just doesn't make sense. Was Hindley's wife (Hareton's mother) simply an extremely kind person? That's the only thing I can think of as an explanation for his random positive traits, which were foreign characteristics within this novel. I know it's not likely because Hindley's wife played such a minor role, but what else could it be?

Any thoughts?

[JCamilo]

Hi,

So I read Wuthering Heights... What an odd book.

First off all, why did Bronte make pretty much every single character not likeable? I mean, even the two central characters, Cathy and Heathcliffe (I mean, I think they were... Not Cathy so much because she was dead for the second part of the book, but anyway...) were disgusting. Heathcliffe - well, I think that that is pretty self-explanatory (abusive, cruel, insensitive, sadistic). Cathy - self-centered, mercurial, superficial. I mean, come on. Can anyone honestly tell me who the protagonist is?

You did not like them. Now, there is people who likes Dracula. Do you think he is better? And what is the difficulty to find out the protagonist? It is Heathcliffe and books do not have to be only about good boys raised by their grandmothers in a big house. Emily was writting under the romantic influence, this means Lord Byron, apparently a very unliked character who wrote a very famous poem about a very unlikeably character named Don Juan. And she wasnt the only one, Dostoieviksy would write stories about murderers or of course, the underground man, both unlikeable.


And their "love?" Not appealing at all. I mean, maybe their craziness could be compatible, but the bottom line is that Cathy chose Edgar, caring more about superficial societal expectations than her own romantic feelings. Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that. I completely understand that back then, marrying outside your "status" was not really accepted, but the least Cathy could have done was not throw hissy fits after she made her decision, and face the consequences she created (which honestly weren't that bad... she had a nice house and a doting husband - that's not exactly torture). If her love for Heathcliffe was as deep as she expressed it to be, then why would she throw it all away for a superficial whim? She either is intensely in love with Heathcliffe, or isn't - she can't be both.

Life is full of not appealling love, but considering the success of the book and the continual quoting of Cathy's words about her eternal love ot Heathcliff, it is obvious their love worked. And sure, the tragedy is that they couldn't have each other and Cathy choose wrongly or havent you notice she died and all that was left to her was Heathcliff's love.



And even all of the other characters - gross, gross, gross. The Lintons: prissy, spoiled (Mr. Linton, I think had a kind heart, but was honestly so flat and weak that I would hardly call him "likeable"). Linton Heathcliffe: made me sick (makes sense though I guess - being the offspring of Heathcliffe and Isabel... gag) Young Cathy Linton: not bad, but lived a pretty much perfect life, so really had no reason to be too horrible. Hindley: a crazy drunk.

Can someone explain to me why these characters (namely Heathcliffe, Cathy Sr., and Hindley) turned out so badly as adults? I mean, they grew up in nice households. Did they all just have crazy genes?

They didn't grow up in a nice households. How so, if you identified every single character as gross or spoiled. Anyways, it is obvious that Emily didnt went down to the Rousseau theory that education alone would form character. Her world is twisted, full of gray areas. While Heathcliff is vengenceful because of how he was treated and he causes everything to go bad, thus making most characters be weak or spiteful, the ending shows that you can break the chain.


This now brings me to Hareton. Honestly, I think that he is only semi-likeable character in the entire book - which is a bit of a plot hole. Despite his crazy outbursts (a result of his upbringing), he seems like a kind person, shown through his actions towards young Cathy, and his loyalty to Heathcliffe. What made him like this? He was the son of crazy Hindley, and grew up being abused by Healthcliffe - doesn't seem like a good formula to me. And yet, he ended up "better" than all of the other characters, who I believe had pretty decent upbringings - it just doesn't make sense. Was Hindley's wife (Hareton's mother) simply an extremely kind person? That's the only thing I can think of as an explanation for his random positive traits, which were foreign characteristics within this novel. I know it's not likely because Hindley's wife played such a minor role, but what else could it be?

Any thoughts?

Yes, Wuttering Height is a great book that pretty much explores the psychology of many characters without giving an easy answer. Heathcliff is wicked and as long he is near, he can ruin anything he touches.

[Laura Clarke]

They didn't grow up in a nice households. How so, if you identified every single character as gross or spoiled. Anyways, it is obvious that Emily didnt went down to the Rousseau theory that education alone would form character. Her world is twisted, full of gray areas. While Heathcliff is vengenceful because of how he was treated and he causes everything to go bad, thus making most characters be weak or spiteful, the ending shows that you can break the chain.

Heathcliffe is the one I have the largest problem with here. Mr. Earnshaw gave him everything he wanted, and he had Cathy as a best friend. I never got the impression that he was treated badly. Cathy, too. Hindley is maybe the only one who deserves a little sympathy, having been shoved to side by Heathcliffe.

I don't dislike the book. It was definitely an exciting read, but just very different from what I'm used to.

[kev67]

I thought young Cathy was a likable character, although she did not initially appear so to Mr Lockwood. She nursed the horrid Linton Heathcliff, which probably meant helping him go to the toilet, because no one else was going to. Heathcliff's nastiness may in part be due to his nature, but also due to his mistreatment by his adoptive brother. Nell is a likeable character.

[JCamilo]

Heathcliff didnt had everything he wanted (he wanted Cathy). Now, when Heathcliff was taken home, he was already a victim of mistreat, Cathy and her brother bullied him and her brother always treated him like a servant boy. And his relationship with Cathy had 500 shades of grey.

[Laura Clarke]

They bullied him at first, but pretty quickly he and Catherine became best friends and kind of isolated Hindley. And sure, Hindley treated him poorly, but Heathcliffe is equally guilty in that regard - it was a mutual feud. So he had both the support of Mr. Earnshaw and Cathy as a child - not too bad.

Yes, he didn't get Cathy in the end, but would that disappointment really drive him to hang dogs, marry a women for her money and then make her so miserable that she runs away, physically abuse his own son, keep a women hostage until she agrees to do what he wants...?

[Jackson Richardson]

A sadistic, necrophiliac fantasy?

[JCamilo]

They bullied him at first, but pretty quickly he and Catherine became best friends and kind of isolated Hindley. And sure, Hindley treated him poorly, but Heathcliffe is equally guilty in that regard - it was a mutual feud. So he had both the support of Mr. Earnshaw and Cathy as a child - not too bad.

Yes, he didn't get Cathy in the end, but would that disappointment really drive him to hang dogs, marry a women for her money and then make her so miserable that she runs away, physically abuse his own son, keep a women hostage until she agrees to do what he wants...?

C'mom, read chapter four. Heathcliff was hated by everyone but Cathy (hardly the most caring partner someone can have), even Nelly and Hindley spanked him often. It was a hellish place for him.

[mona amon]

Heathcliff is an excellent illustration of the way a person's inborn character traits interact with his environment to produce the person that he is. Mr. Earnshaw brings him to the house when he's a child a little older than 6 year old Cathy, so who knows what neglect and abuse he suffered up to that point? Once in the House he is regarded as a cuckoo in the nest and resented accordingly by Mrs. Earnshaw and Hindley. Mr. Earnshaw's doting does not help. Heathcliff already has a tendency to be manipulative and vengeful. A lot of the story is about how he is brutalized by Hindley and how he pays him back.

Laura, you may be interested in Charlotte Bronte's introduction to Wuthering Heights http://www.thegreatbooks.org/library/texts/bronte/wuthering/wuthering_pref.htm In true big-sisterly fashion she didn't quite approve of the characters and the amoral nature of the book, but she does it justice in the end, especially in this beautiful final paragraph - "'Wuthering Heights' was hewn in a wild workshop, with simple tools, out of homely materials. The statuary found a granite block on a solitary moor; gazing thereon, he saw how from the crag might be elicited a head, savage, swart, sinister; a form moulded with at least one element of grandeur - power. He wrought with a rude chisel, and from no model but the vision of his meditations. With time and labour, the crag took human shape; and there it stands colossal, dark, and frowning, half statue, half rock: in the former sense, terrible and goblin-like; in the latter, almost beautiful, for its colouring is of mellow grey, and moorland moss clothes it; and heath, with its blooming bells and balmy fragrance, grows faithfully close to the giant's foot.

[Laura Clarke]

C'mom, read chapter four. Heathcliff was hated by everyone but Cathy (hardly the most caring partner someone can have), even Nelly and Hindley spanked him often. It was a hellish place for him.

I reread chapter 4 - and I definitively see the "negative sheen" Bronte was illustrating over Heathcliffe's childhood. Yes, they all hated him... at first. But, Catherine became is best friend and Nellie sort of came around, so Heathcliff was never completely isolated from human kindness - he shouldn't have grown up to be such a monster.

In all honesty, I see Hindley as the victim here. Here, as first born son, I'm sure he was initially treated very nicely. However, once Heathcliff entered the picture, Hindley lost the affection/friendship of his father, sister, and Nellie to Heathcliffe. Mrs. Earnshaw dies pretty quickly in the book, so I wouldn't count her as one of Hindley's allies. From this perspective, I can definitively see why he would mistreat Heathcliff, and then grow up "messed up." I found it interesting that he really broke down after his wife died - possibly the only person who ever truly showed him affection?

I think that Hindley was, in a way, more miserable than Heathcliff as a child.

[Laura Clarke]

Laura, you may be interested in Charlotte Bronte's introduction to Wuthering Heights http://www.thegreatbooks.org/library/texts/bronte/wuthering/wuthering_pref.htm In true big-sisterly fashion she didn't quite approve of the characters and the amoral nature of the book, but she does it justice in the end, especially in this beautiful final paragraph - "'Wuthering Heights' was hewn in a wild workshop, with simple tools, out of homely materials. The statuary found a granite block on a solitary moor; gazing thereon, he saw how from the crag might be elicited a head, savage, swart, sinister; a form moulded with at least one element of grandeur - power. He wrought with a rude chisel, and from no model but the vision of his meditations. With time and labour, the crag took human shape; and there it stands colossal, dark, and frowning, half statue, half rock: in the former sense, terrible and goblin-like; in the latter, almost beautiful, for its colouring is of mellow grey, and moorland moss clothes it; and heath, with its blooming bells and balmy fragrance, grows faithfully close to the giant's foot.

Thanks mona, it was an interesting read.

I loved this part: "Heathcliff betrays one solitary human feeling, and that is NOT his love for Catherine; which is a sentiment fierce and inhuman: a passion such as might boil and glow in the bad essence of some evil genius [...] No; the single link that connects Heathcliff with humanity is his rudely-confessed regard for Hareton Earnshaw - the young man whom he has ruined; and then his half-implied esteem for Nelly Dean. These solitary traits omitted, we should say he was child neither of Lascar nor gipsy, but a man's shape animated by demon life - a Ghoul - an Afreet."

- Fantastic. Heathcliff's minor affections toward Nellie and Hareton are definitively overlooked in the book - We usually focus Heathcliff's animalistic passion for Catherine when we think about his "positive" (I can't think of a better word) relationships with other characters. But now that I think about it, those 2 are truly the only connections of him to being human, not the whole "Catherine obsession."

Something that sparked my interest: "For an example of constancy and tenderness, remark that of Edgar Linton. (Some people will think these qualities do not shine so well incarnate in a man as they would do in a woman, but Ellis Bell could never be brought to comprehend this notion: nothing moved her more than any insinuation that the faithfulness and clemency, the long-suffering and loving-kindness which are esteemed virtues in the daughters of Eve, become foibles in the sons of Adam. She held that mercy and forgiveness are the divinest attributes of the Great Being who made both man and woman, and that what clothes the Godhead in glory, can disgrace no form of feeble humanity."

It's funny, I had always been under the impression that Emily had some sort of attraction to the savage Heathcliff, with him being her "unrealistic fantasy." But this is pretty interesting. Edgar Linton encompasses these characteristics that Emily appreciates, with Heathcliff being the absolute opposite. Hmm...

[Gladys]

First off all, why did Bronte make pretty much every single character not likeable? I mean, even the two central characters, Cathy and Heathcliffe (I mean, I think they were... Not Cathy so much because she was dead for the second part of the book, but anyway...) were disgusting. Heathcliffe - well, I think that that is pretty self-explanatory (abusive, cruel, insensitive, sadistic). Cathy - self-centered, mercurial, superficial. I mean, come on. Can anyone honestly tell me who the protagonist is?

I loved the book and would disagree with your characterisation of Catherine and Heathcliff. Emily Bronte makes no explicit judgement on the pair because happenings are relayed by less than reliable narrators. An insightful Catherine soon finds herself trapped in a slowly-closing societal vice from which there is no escape. While she loves Heathcliff, society makes marriage or living-in-sin with him unpalatable. Besides, Heathcliff is psychologically risky, as we see so clearly later. As she is slowly crushed, Cathy protests defiantly against the unfairness in her class-ridden and male-dominated world, and the unfairness of life itself. She dies defiant, and has my sympathy and admiration.

As for the intelligent Heathcliff, the unfairness of his world, was clear to him from a traumatic infancy onward. He is damaged goods. But like Cathy, he fights back, without boundaries. For better or for worse, they both rise above and openly defy a complaisant society determined to smother them. Like many an Ibsen play, Bronte's commentary on society is biting and her psychological portraits acute and unvarnished. The two portraits seem almost existential.

In the end, they lie together unashamedly for all eternity.

[JCamilo]

I reread chapter 4 - and I definitively see the "negative sheen" Bronte was illustrating over Heathcliffe's childhood. Yes, they all hated him... at first. But, Catherine became is best friend and Nellie sort of came around, so Heathcliff was never completely isolated from human kindness - he shouldn't have grown up to be such a monster.

In all honesty, I see Hindley as the victim here. Here, as first born son, I'm sure he was initially treated very nicely. However, once Heathcliff entered the picture, Hindley lost the affection/friendship of his father, sister, and Nellie to Heathcliffe. Mrs. Earnshaw dies pretty quickly in the book, so I wouldn't count her as one of Hindley's allies. From this perspective, I can definitively see why he would mistreat Heathcliff, and then grow up "messed up." I found it interesting that he really broke down after his wife died - possibly the only person who ever truly showed him affection?

I think that Hindley was, in a way, more miserable than Heathcliff as a child.

Hindley is not a good person and there is no indication he did lost anything from his father, plus as soon heathcliff arrives, Hindley already treats him badly. It is Cathy that changes to like Heathcliff with time. Hidley mistreatment of Heathcliff was not caused by Heathcliff at all. Lets face it, he was a spoiled brat as much as Cathy was.

Anyways, you just discovered that in all world, 2 individuals didnt hated Heathcliff and you think he shouldnt be a monster of sorts? Specially considering this hatred kept him from being accepted by society and lose Cathy? And those two individuals, one is Cathy, hardly a person that brings the best from someone and she is a rose with very sharp thorns.

[Laura Clarke]

An insightful Catherine soon finds herself trapped in a slowly-closing societal vice from which there is no escape. While she loves Heathcliff, society makes marriage or living-in-sin with him unpalatable. Besides, Heathcliff is psychologically risky, as we see so clearly later. As she is slowly crushed, Cathy protests defiantly against the unfairness in her class-ridden and male-dominated world, and the unfairness of life itself. She dies defiant, and has my sympathy and admiration.

I would agree with this if it hadn't for the part where Cathy starts to ignore Heathcliff and chase after Edgar.

I found the spot in chapter 8 where Heathcliff asks Cathy to spend more time with him: ‘And should I always be sitting with you?’ she demanded, growing more irritated. ‘What good do I get? What do you talk about? You might be dumb, or a baby, for anything you say to amuse me, or for anything you do, either!’
‘You never told me before that I talked too little, or that you disliked my company, Cathy!’ exclaimed Heathcliff, in much agitation.
‘It’s no company at all, when people know nothing and say nothing,’ she muttered.

That doesn't seem like society is forcing her to do anything. Her own free will is what gets in the way of their relationship. When she dies, I would argue that she dies mistakenly unhappy with how everyone has treated her, while in reality, she brought it all upon herself.


As for the intelligent Heathcliff, the unfairness of his world, was clear to him from a traumatic infancy onward. He is damaged goods. But like Cathy, he fights back, without boundaries. For better or for worse, they both rise above and openly defy a complaisant society determined to smother them. Like many an Ibsen play, Bronte's commentary on society is biting and her psychological portraits acute and unvarnished. The two portraits seem almost existential.

In the end, they lie together unashamedly for all eternity.

Heathcliff is definitively intelligent - I'll give you that. And damaged? Absolutely. But fighting back: I would say that there is a difference between that, and trying to destroy everything in your path. Perhaps Hindley (from a twisted perspective) deserved what Heathcliff did to him because of there feud, but did Hareton? And maybe Heathcliff couldn't control his hatred for Edgar, but to take it out on poor Isabel? And then young Cathy? The "society" Heathcliff targets is not the society that smothered him.

[Laura Clarke]

Anyways, you just discovered that in all world, 2 individuals didnt hated Heathcliff and you think he shouldnt be a monster of sorts?

Two words:

Jane Eyre (my favorite book :)).

Sorry to stray a bit, but I see a nice parallel here. Both Heathcliff and Jane were raised in a family who didn't want them. Both were outcasts. Both were abused. In fact, I would say that Jane had it worse because she didn't even have a friend at Gateshead, while Heathcliff had Cathy.

And yet, what did Jane do? She worked hard, found a means to provide for herself independently, and lived virtuously. She even forgave her aunt for her mistreatment.

Heathcliff, on the other hand, grows up and gets revenge on all who were previously unkind to him, and then ruins the lives of a bunch of other people for good measure.

Their situations are very similar, and yet we see two polar opposite responses. Heathcliff's environment as a child was not perfect, I'll agree to that. Did he ever feel hated by everyone? Perhaps... but Jane experienced the same thing! Heathcliff's environment does not excuse him for the monster he becomes because we can clearly see that it's not the only option available to him...

[JCamilo]

Yes, they are different, but I do not mean Jane and Heathcliff, I mean Charlotte and Emily. They are sisters and could produce world-views as different, why wouldnt their characters? There was a motive why the initial reaction to Emily's novel wasn't very praising while Charlotte managed to have some success but latter Emily status raised that she is usually the most praiseworth of the trio. Wuthering Heights wasnt a conventional work with conventional characters. Her bleakness places her works in world of the psychological novels, that would be developed by the russians. I do not think Heathcliff ever had other options, he only could be who he was.

You have to consider she was writting under influence of romanticism, which includes Rousseau and the argument about the influence of the education to form an adduylt. She seems to suggest there is something inate also, Heathcliff rebels against what others were trying to make him be, but at the endubg if the book seems to suggest you can fight the enviroment and be "good".

Think about those verses from Milton "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven", that is what Heathcliff do and the book is all aboutt. So, maybe the abuse he suffered justifies his vengence to him, triggers the revenge, but he was already someone walking at the devil's side.

[Gladys]

I found the spot in chapter 8 where Heathcliff asks Cathy to spend more time with him: ‘And should I always be sitting with you?’ she demanded, growing more irritated. ‘What good do I get? What do you talk about? You might be dumb, or a baby, for anything you say to amuse me, or for anything you do, either!’
‘You never told me before that I talked too little, or that you disliked my company, Cathy!’ exclaimed Heathcliff, in much agitation.
‘It’s no company at all, when people know nothing and say nothing,’ she muttered.

That doesn't seem like society is forcing her to do anything. Her own free will is what gets in the way of their relationship. When she dies, I would argue that she dies mistakenly unhappy with how everyone has treated her, while in reality, she brought it all upon herself.

I rather think these passages indirectly show the pressure of English society upon poor Catherine. This is early 19th century England: no women's lib, no vote or property rights for women, not even suffragettes yet. England is a class-ridden society, where a decent marriage is all important for most women, and Heathcliff is the lowest of the low. In love with Heathcliff, Catherine is bound by society's strident stipulation that a young woman, in her own best interests, must marry appropriately for her standing in society. The ignorant, uncouth Heathcliff won't do, and well she (and everyone else) knows it! These passages are her feeble attempt to rationalise spurning him. It is blindingly obvious that no one, but Heathcliff, would question her spurning.

It's a different story, years later, when the now successful Heathcliff approaches poor Isabella.



Heathcliff is definitively intelligent - I'll give you that. And damaged? Absolutely. But fighting back: I would say that there is a difference between that, and trying to destroy everything in your path. Perhaps Hindley (from a twisted perspective) deserved what Heathcliff did to him because of there feud, but did Hareton? And maybe Heathcliff couldn't control his hatred for Edgar, but to take it out on poor Isabel? And then young Cathy? The "society" Heathcliff targets is not the society that smothered him.

Heathcliff is seriously damaged in infancy, childhood, growing up and, ultimately, by Catherine's rejection. And damaged means damaged! Why would you expect Heathcliff to forgive, behave decently, and forget? Nor does he. As for his treatment of Hareton, we are explicitly told that Heathcliff is avenging himself on Hindley's son. And Isabella is, of course, the hated Edgar Linton's sister. The motives of a damaged Heathcliff are all too obvious. Do we need to defend or condemn him?

As for Catherine, she is damned whichever way she turns. Perhaps, the young Emily Bronte felt much the same.

[Laura Clarke]

Yes, they are different, but I do not mean Jane and Heathcliff, I mean Charlotte and Emily. They are sisters and could produce world-views as different, why wouldnt their characters? There was a motive why the initial reaction to Emily's novel wasn't very praising while Charlotte managed to have some success but latter Emily status raised that she is usually the most praiseworth of the trio. Wuthering Heights wasnt a conventional work with conventional characters. Her bleakness places her works in world of the psychological novels, that would be developed by the russians. I do not think Heathcliff ever had other options, he only could be who he was.

You have to consider she was writting under influence of romanticism, which includes Rousseau and the argument about the influence of the education to form an adduylt. She seems to suggest there is something inate also, Heathcliff rebels against what others were trying to make him be, but at the endubg if the book seems to suggest you can fight the enviroment and be "good".

Think about those verses from Milton "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven", that is what Heathcliff do and the book is all aboutt. So, maybe the abuse he suffered justifies his vengence to him, triggers the revenge, but he was already someone walking at the devil's side.

Alright J, well said. I'm definitively more of a Charlotte person.

I don't see how Heathcliff was "good" at the end though. He was crazy and friendless - he even died with a creepy grin on his face. But I guess in a financial sense he was successful, triumphing over those who had previously scorned him?

[Laura Clarke]

I rather think these passages indirectly show the pressure of English society upon poor Catherine. This is early 19th century England: no women's lib, no vote or property rights for women, not even suffragettes yet. England is a class-ridden society, where a decent marriage is all important for most women, and Heathcliff is the lowest of the low. In love with Heathcliff, Catherine is bound by society's strident stipulation that a young woman, in her own best interests, must marry appropriately for her standing in society. The ignorant, uncouth Heathcliff won't do, and well she (and everyone else) knows it! These passages are her feeble attempt to rationalise spurning him. It is blindingly obvious that no one, but Heathcliff, would question her spurning.

As for Catherine, she is damned whichever way she turns. Perhaps, the young Emily Bronte felt much the same.

Here's my problem. Perhaps Catherine was being "corrupted" by society. Maybe she didn't like her two options. And yes, society is pressuring her... But she is the one who gives in! No one physically coerced her into marriage. She ultimately abides by the rules, and then rues her decision. I don't see that as "proudly defying society." And when she realizes her "mistake" (Edgar Linton is not that bad) she throws tantrums like a 2 year old. I mean come on, the least she could do to show some courage is "suffer" in silence (again, I don't see it as suffering. She's with a handsome, doting, rich guy for goodness sake).

[JCamilo]

Alright J, well said. I'm definitively more of a Charlotte person.

I don't see how Heathcliff was "good" at the end though. He was crazy and friendless - he even died with a creepy grin on his face. But I guess in a financial sense he was successful, triumphing over those who had previously scorned him?

Oh, not Heathcliff, I do not see he had a redemption, after Cathy's Ghost is not exactly an angel. I mean the second generation, the kids, who were abused and mistreated by him and yet in the end, they seem to be able to turn good or at least, a potential good. (Good or empathic towards others)

[Laura Clarke]

Oh, not Heathcliff, I do not see he had a redemption, after Cathy's Ghost is not exactly an angel. I mean the second generation, the kids, who were abused and mistreated by him and yet in the end, they seem to be able to turn good or at least, a potential good. (Good or empathic towards others)

Oh, I see. Very very true... That makes sense, with the next generation kind of succeeding where the previous had failed, finding happiness...

Wow, that just completely changed my perspective of the book...

[Laura Clarke]

Thanks!

[Gladys]

Here's my problem. Perhaps Catherine was being "corrupted" by society. Maybe she didn't like her two options. And yes, society is pressuring her... But she is the one who gives in! No one physically coerced her into marriage. She ultimately abides by the rules, and then rues her decision. I don't see that as "proudly defying society." And when she realizes her "mistake" (Edgar Linton is not that bad) she throws tantrums like a 2 year old. I mean come on, the least she could do to show some courage is "suffer" in silence (again, I don't see it as suffering. She's with a handsome, doting, rich guy for goodness sake).

I would agree with all but "she throws tantrums like a 2 year old". Were she to suffer in silence, as you suggest, she would merely follow in the footsteps of countless generations of compliant and decent women before her. We saw in her childhood loyalty to poor Heathcliff that Catherine has exceptional integrity and spine.

To label Catherine's reaction "tantrums" trivialises her grand but fatal protest against the straitjackets placed upon her from every direction. While her protest is unto death, it is much more than suicide. Indeed, the entire novel revolves around her ultimate, heroic protest against hypocrisy, her place in the universe , and suffocating fate. She isn't so much striking out at Edgar Linton or Heathcliff, as hitting out at the unfairness of humanity, the world and the gods. There is something monumental, something akin to King Lear, in her existential resolve to lash out unilaterally at the end. If all she does is tantrum, Heathcliff, Cathy and vision-seeing Mr Lockwood are far less credible, as is Wuthering Heights itself.

But no, the novel is magnificent, if cryptic.

[Laura Clarke]

If Cathy was truly protesting, than why would she agree to marry Edgar in the first place? I see there being 2 options: Either you give in and marry the guy, or you don't. By marrying him and then protesting after the fact, she does the job "halfway" - not true resistance but not true compliance either.

[Gladys]

If Cathy was truly protesting, than why would she agree to marry Edgar in the first place? I see there being 2 options: Either you give in and marry the guy, or you don't. By marrying him and then protesting after the fact, she does the job "halfway" - not true resistance but not true compliance either.

Catherine marries because she is trapped, from birth, in a closing vice from which there is only one escape, of which she avails herself. You, maybe, underestimate that societal vice. The girl is only human, and she does what she can.

[mona amon]

Catherine is a Diva. She is used to getting what she wants, and in this case she wants Heathcliff and she wants Edgar. When she finds she can't reconcile the two, she throws tantrums, and ultimately breaks down and self destructs. All tantrums are a protest against restrictions placed on socially accepted behavior, even those thrown by a two year old. Now I may be trivializing her frustration, but Bronte isn't. She creates her characters with psychological depth and complexity and then makes them react to the situations she has created for them without judging or moralizing, something pretty unique for her time, and the result is great art.


Thanks mona, it was an interesting read.

I loved this part: "Heathcliff betrays one solitary human feeling, and that is NOT his love for Catherine; which is a sentiment fierce and inhuman: a passion such as might boil and glow in the bad essence of some evil genius [...] No; the single link that connects Heathcliff with humanity is his rudely-confessed regard for Hareton Earnshaw - the young man whom he has ruined; and then his half-implied esteem for Nelly Dean. These solitary traits omitted, we should say he was child neither of Lascar nor gipsy, but a man's shape animated by demon life - a Ghoul - an Afreet."

- Fantastic. Heathcliff's minor affections toward Nellie and Hareton are definitively overlooked in the book - We usually focus Heathcliff's animalistic passion for Catherine when we think about his "positive" (I can't think of a better word) relationships with other characters. But now that I think about it, those 2 are truly the only connections of him to being human, not the whole "Catherine obsession."

Something that sparked my interest: "For an example of constancy and tenderness, remark that of Edgar Linton. (Some people will think these qualities do not shine so well incarnate in a man as they would do in a woman, but Ellis Bell could never be brought to comprehend this notion: nothing moved her more than any insinuation that the faithfulness and clemency, the long-suffering and loving-kindness which are esteemed virtues in the daughters of Eve, become foibles in the sons of Adam. She held that mercy and forgiveness are the divinest attributes of the Great Being who made both man and woman, and that what clothes the Godhead in glory, can disgrace no form of feeble humanity."

It's funny, I had always been under the impression that Emily had some sort of attraction to the savage Heathcliff, with him being her "unrealistic fantasy." But this is pretty interesting. Edgar Linton encompasses these characteristics that Emily appreciates, with Heathcliff being the absolute opposite. Hmm...

Heathcliff is a diabolical, destructive force in the world of Wuthering Heights and he has his share of admirers (there is no accounting for tastes) but I do not think Emily was one of them. Besides the elemental, destructive qualities she also makes him mean, petty and cruel. Surely Catherine's warning to Isabella is also Emily's warning to readers who tend to romanticize him? "Nelly, help me to convince her of her madness. Tell her what Heathcliff is: an unreclaimed creature, without refinement, without cultivation; an arid wilderness of furze and whinstone. I’d as soon put that little canary into the park on a winter’s day, as recommend you to bestow your heart on him! It is deplorable ignorance of his character, child, and nothing else, which makes that dream enter your head. Pray, don’t imagine that he conceals depths of benevolence and affection beneath a stern exterior! He’s not a rough diamond—a pearl-containing oyster of a rustic: he’s a fierce, pitiless, wolfish man. I never say to him, “Let this or that enemy alone, because it would be ungenerous or cruel to harm them;” I say, “Let them alone, because I should hate them to be wronged:” and he’d crush you like a sparrow’s egg, Isabella, if he found you a troublesome charge. I know he couldn’t love a Linton; and yet he’d be quite capable of marrying your fortune and expectations: avarice is growing with him a besetting sin. There’s my picture: and I’m his friend—"

And there's also the way the plot unfolds. Heathcliff is the outsider, the disruptive force in the closed world of Wuthering Heights and the Grange. He wreaks havoc for a while, but by the end of the book all traces of him and his progeny have completely vanished. The Earnshaw and Linton heirs continue to survive and prosper, and peace and harmony return to this small corner of the world.

[Gladys]

Catherine is a Diva...

And there's also the way the plot unfolds. Heathcliff is the outsider, the disruptive force in the closed world of Wuthering Heights and the Grange. He wreaks havoc for a while, but by the end of the book all traces of him and his progeny have completely vanished. The Earnshaw and Linton heirs continue to survive and prosper, and peace and harmony return to this small corner of the world.

I disagree she's a Diva but more particularly with your ending. Your analysis scarcely accounts for the enduring affection and generosity of Catherine towards Heathcliff. Good Mr Earnshaw daughter sees something in him that you don't. And what of the character of Catherine's daughter?

If all traces have been lost, what of Mr Lockwood's ghost and Nelly's account:


But the country folks, if you ask them, would swear on the Bible that he walks: there are those who speak to having met him near the church, and on the moor, and even within this house. Idle tales, you’ll say, and so say I. Yet that old man by the kitchen fire affirms he has seen two on ’em looking out of his chamber window on every rainy night since his death:—and an odd thing happened to me about a month ago. I was going to the Grange one evening—a dark evening, threatening thunder—and, just at the turn of the Heights, I encountered a little boy with a sheep and two lambs before him; he was crying terribly; and I supposed the lambs were skittish, and would not be guided.

‘What is the matter, my little man?’ I asked.

‘There’s Heathcliff and a woman yonder, under t’ nab,’ he blubbered, ‘un’ I darnut pass ’em.’

I saw nothing; but neither the sheep nor he would go on so I bid him take the road lower down. He probably raised the phantoms from thinking, as he traversed the moors alone, on the nonsense he had heard his parents and companions repeat. Yet, still, I don’t like being out in the dark now; and I don’t like being left by myself in this grim house: I cannot help it; I shall be glad when they leave it, and shift to the Grange.

[JCamilo]

Heathcliff traces weren't all gone. It is impossible. He is indeed the source of chaos and havoc, but what does it imply? Change. Had no Heathcliff, the place would remain the same, most likely Cathy would marry her neighbour and that would be all. He came and changed it. After his passage, the new generation may not fall for his bitterness, but they aren't also the passive Earnshaw and Linton's anymore.

I do not exactly see Cathy as a feminist heroine (something more suited to Charlotte characters) but she did react to a sittuation that wasn't of her pleasure. She is a spoiled girl, she do give up the fight when she marries, but that is more a way to say that nothing the Lintons or Earnshaws did could stop the "Heathcliff effect". She basically dies because she had no strength to resist it and knew she should have changed instead of trying to survive in the past. The "new Cathy" is a different breed, she adapted to survive. The new generation may have Earnshaw and Linton's DNA, but their clay was molded by Heathcliff's chaos and they cannot live their the early generations, in that "paradise".

[Laura Clarke]

I disagree she's a Diva but more particularly with your ending. Your analysis scarcely accounts for the enduring affection and generosity of Catherine towards Heathcliff. Good Mr Earnshaw daughter sees something in him that you don't.

I don't remember Catherine showing any sort of enduring generosity/affection towards Heathcliff (apart from her childhood affection, which I don't think counts as a reflection on Heathcliff's personality - Cathy was just a kid who liked to break the rules with another kid.) When the grow up, all they share is some sort of animalistic passion for each other, not love or affection. And in the passage in mona's post, you can really see Cathy what thinks of Heathcliff - Catherine recognizes what a beast he is, and explicitly states that there's nothing good beneath the surface.

[mona amon]

I disagree she's a Diva but more particularly with your ending. Your analysis scarcely accounts for the enduring affection and generosity of Catherine towards Heathcliff. Good Mr Earnshaw daughter sees something in him that you don't. And what of the character of Catherine's daughter?

If all traces have been lost, what of Mr Lockwood's ghost and Nelly's account:

As Laura says, there is no generosity. Only intensity of affection. They endure and fascinate the reader not due to any lovable personality traits or nobility or heroic grandeur but because of the poetic intensity that Emily has imbued them with. The ghost story is part of what gives it the poetic intensity, part of the resolution to Heathcliff and Catherine's story that we are seeking. After all, which reader seriously cares about the second generation of Earnshaws and Lintons? Of course every part of the novel is as important as the other, especially in a tale as concentrated and narrowly focused as this, but it is Cathy and Heathcliff in whom we are interested, even in ghost form. The story grips us from the moment the little icy cold hand grips Lockwood's, and holds us captive until he sees them as "quiet sleepers in this quiet earth".

JCamillo, I was talking about DNA when I said there were no traces of Heathcliff or his progeny left by the end of the novel, which is significant in this enclosed tale of two families and one outsider, but it is also interesting to consider what effect Heathcliff had on the next generation. I feel there is very little effect of any significance. He tries to do to Hindley's offspring what Hindley had done to him, but the result is complete failure. Hareton grows into a rude but generous and affectionate young man, who actually loves Heathcliff. All Heathcliff's grand plans are defeated by his mental breakdown at the end (or Catherine's ghost, if the reader prefers it that way), and the two properties revert to the rightful heirs. Heathcliff is like storm or flood or fire. The effects are felt for a while, but then the tempest is gone, the survivors pick themselves up, and in time the balance of nature is restored.

[Gladys]

but it is also interesting to consider what effect Heathcliff had on the next generation. I feel there is very little effect of any significance. He tries to do to Hindley's offspring what Hindley had done to him, but the result is complete failure. A complete failure for whom? If anything, Heathcliff seems quite satisfied with his handling of the next generation. Ultimately, their future becomes irrelevant to Heathcliff because he sees his no longer in the land of the living. Heathcliff's personal failure consists in a dawning realisation that nothing on earth can make up for his loss of Catherine. Wuthering Heights is, throughout, a love story of sorts.


I don't remember Catherine showing any sort of enduring generosity/affection towards Heathcliff (apart from her childhood affection, which I don't think counts as a reflection on Heathcliff's personality - Cathy was just a kid who liked to break the rules with another kid.) When the grow up, all they share is some sort of animalistic passion for each other, not love or affection. Call Catherine's deep attraction to Heathcliff pity, sympathy, generosity, childhood affection, animalistic passion or love, it incontestably drives the entire novel! Even as "sleepers in that quiet earth".

Am I the only one who sees the indisputable generosity and kindness of Mr Earnshaw inherited by his passionate daughter? There is something profoundly admirable in the strength, integrity and passion of Catherine, and in her uncompromising defiance of society and its petty norms. With more empathy than Mr Lockwood, the unreliable narrator, I echo, "How any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth?"

[JCamilo]

JCamillo, I was talking about DNA when I said there were no traces of Heathcliff or his progeny left by the end of the novel, which is significant in this enclosed tale of two families and one outsider, but it is also interesting to consider what effect Heathcliff had on the next generation. I feel there is very little effect of any significance. He tries to do to Hindley's offspring what Hindley had done to him, but the result is complete failure. Hareton grows into a rude but generous and affectionate young man, who actually loves Heathcliff.

I try to avoid the jugement in terms of failures and sucess, but here is something to consider. As you say, Heathcliff tries to do with the kids what Hindley did to him. So, in the end, Heathcliff "failure" is Hindley failure. And what that generate? A new generation - those rightful owners - who seems to be an improvement of what there before. It was a househood that generated Hindley and Cathy (and a good deal of Heathcliff), now it generates Hareton and new Cathy. The change is clear, as you said, Heathcliff is a bringer of chaos. Let's not think of him of someone with a plan to win in the end - He was what he was, like the psychological novels that would follow Emily's death, it is about his existence, not his success - but as someone who brings changes.


All Heathcliff's grand plans are defeated by his mental breakdown at the end (or Catherine's ghost, if the reader prefers it that way), and the two properties revert to the rightful heirs. Heathcliff is like storm or flood or fire. The effects are felt for a while, but then the tempest is gone, the survivors pick themselves up, and in time the balance of nature is restored.

I do not even think Heathcliff had a plan to take the proprieties, except as part of the torture he was planning to do with them. Even the whole marriage with Linton was just a way to have Cathy under his control rather than hope to take the place of the Lintons. In a moral reading, Heathcliff is defeated, but as I said, he erased pretty much all that was wrong with the Linton's with his acts, either it was his intention or not.

[JCamilo]

Am I the only one who sees the indisputable generosity and kindness of Mr Earnshaw inherited by his passionate daughter? There is something profoundly admirable in the strength, integrity and passion of Catherine, and in her uncompromising defiance of society and its petty norms. With more empathy than Mr Lockwood, the unreliable narrator, I echo, "How any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth?"

Yes, only you :D

Which act of generosity original Cathy had? Like her father she likes Heathcliff, but that is all (or everything). She does not really defy society, She marries the conventional Edgar (which was the usual script that would be accepted by all society) and ignores any possibility of change or risk denying Heathcliff (and hers) love. What she expected? Heathcliff to nod and be her doorman? Her death is much more because she kept denying Heathcliff irresistible will and possibility of change. I also think you are not giving Emily the credit to actually write a love story so passionate and touching with a couple of selfish individuals, the kind that would only care about themselves and never feel anything true about others in another stories.

Now, is Mr.Lockwood a true unreliable narrator? At least with the technical meaning of the term. The technique would still be developed and Emily or Melville are still far from the subjective unrealiable first person narrator that Dostoievisky, Machado de Assis, Maupassant or Henry James would employ. Even if we consider that Emily's novel is advanced, we also have to consider how it was a work from a yet imature writer, that sometimes Nelly and Lockwood seems to have the same voice, the only difference is the past frame for one and the present for another. Anyways, so does not turn in an argument about Emily's potential, Lockwood is certainly not on team Heathcliff. He evens correct himself - or the first impression he had - and obviously has some sympathy for the kids at least out of his disgust to Heathcliff acts. If anything he would paint a more unfavorable side of Heathcliff even if we consider - there is no motive to this - he altered the version of past Cathy given by Nelly (another narrator that is more sympathetic to Cathy and less to Heathcliff). At anything, he may be a narrator prone to mistakes, not a unreliable, and if he is not very sympathetic towards Cathy, we probally must consider there is no big motives given to him to feel it.