Wuthering Heights...?

[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.