I often wonder how Heathcliff, whose acts are often mean spirited bullying, is often seen as a Byronic hero, romantic in either the Byronic or the modern sense? (Polite note to avoid misunderstandings: I do know the differences between the two).

[Ruth]

Heathcliff does act like a gigantic ass. However, the relationship he has with Catherine does transcend life. Her explanation of how she and Heathcliff are one is soul-rending. I liked the book because it offered so much more than the classic movie with Olivier and Merle Oberon (which I love). And in my fantasy, a man says to me, "If he loved you with all the power of his soul, he couldn't love you as much as I do in a single day." Sigh.

[Lucy]

I think that the reason Heathcliff survives as a "romantic" hero is that his only redeeming characteristic, his one softness, his one beam of light is his love for Cathy (who incidentally hardly deserves it and is in fact just about as bad as he is). And I think there's a feeling among some readers (and maybe the writer herself) that if Cathy had been willing to give up her chance at comfort, their love might have redeemed them both, making their ending that much more tragic and more romantic in the Gothic sense. I know that as a goth teenager reading the book for the first time, I was certain in my tortured little soul that given Cathy's chance, I could have made Heathcliff if not happy at least content. (A truly happy Heathcliff would have lost all his appeal.)
Class is also a major issue in Heathcliff's character and his relationships. Cathy is very aware of his lack of status, and her rejection of him on those grounds likely made a lot more sense to the original readers of Wuthering Heights than it does to us now. I think there's even a case to be made that Bronte considered his inherent brutishness an unavoidable symptom of his birth. No matter how educated he may be or how rich, he's still a brute. But that's not a very romantic reading of the story or his character.

[Lucy]

Mary wrote: "Lucy wrote: "I think that the reason Heathcliff survives as a "romantic" hero is that his only redeeming characteristic, his one softness, his one beam of light is his love for Cathy (who incidenta..."

I think that's possible. Or maybe she wasn't a snob and was worried that she ought to be, that her readers would expect her to be.

[Terri]

I didn't care for Heathcliff or Cathy in the least the first time I read the book and, when I reread it a couple of years ago, I was even more appalled at their behavior; I had forgotten just how despicable he is, and how completely spoiled and unlikable she is. I thought it was a dark, depressing book, and one I won't reread. I do, however, admire Emily Bronte's writing and wish she had lived long enough to write more books. It would've been interesting to see what she would've written next, and how it might have compared to WH.

[Nicole *TheRoseAndTheStar*]

I think that she wasn't spoiled, but she wanted to be. That's why she was going to accept Liton's proposition.

[Nicole *TheRoseAndTheStar*]

Yeah I can't totally blame her for that. But if she loved Heathcliff that much she should have married him despite of everything

[Nicole *TheRoseAndTheStar*]

Yes, she was really silly in that way

[Nicole *TheRoseAndTheStar*]

Mmm maybe he left hoping that she would dump Linton if he were rich enough to cover her standards

[Nicole *TheRoseAndTheStar*]

Yeah, after all they lived in a world where money was everything

[Powerstaark]

Heathcliff's a bad man. He's vicious, resentful, vengeful, sadistic and violent. His one redeeming quality is his loyalty to Catherine and even his love for her can be seen as another implication of how deranged he is. It's even implied that he might have had sex with her corpse!

[Ertele]

Lucinda wrote: "This is what I put in my review of Wuthering Heights after my third reading (Bronte geek, or what?!): -

I have long been fascinated by this. Like so many people, I find it a flawed work of genius..."

Lucinda, I got intrigued by your comment on how Heathcliff doesn't eat meat out of miserliness and has porridge for dinner, so I looked through the book, in search of something that would prove the idea. Here are some quotes:
{Heathcliff: "Sit down and take your dinner with us ... Catherine! bring the things in." Catherine reappeared, bearing a tray of knives and forks.} (chapter 31)

{That noon he sat down to dinner with us ... He took his knife and fork, and was going to commence eating} (chapter 34)

Porridge isn't eaten with knives and forks, is it?

Also, I searched for "porridge" in the e-version of the book and I believe every time it was mentioned, it was either breakfast-time or evening in the story. I think, it's safe to conclude that at Wuthering Heights, they only eat porridge for breakfast or supper (which is fine).

So my question is, what exactly made you think that Heathcliff doesn't eat meat? Have I missed something in the text?

[Ertele]

Cemre wrote: "I think there was one time where Linton Heathcliff refused to eat porridge. And there were a couple of times where they are seen as eating po..."

But Heathcliff never made people eat porridge "instead of meat". Sure, they all had porridge for breakfast, it was indeed mentioned multiple times in the novel (that incident with Linton Heathcliff also occured early in the day), but I found no evidence that Heathcliff never ate meat, as was suggested above. In fact, dinners that they had at Wuthering Heights were comprised of something they were supposed to cut with a knife and fork - clearly not porridge, and most likely meat.

[katie Raney]

Heathcliff is a villain that thinks himself the count of Monte Cristo. While watching his "long game" play out is pretty amazing; to just keep at it after your opponent is dead..just wow. But who are you playing this game for Heath ol' buddy? He hated Joseph as a child then used him to make his home (WH) more undesirable to those who had to live with them and...........ok wait a minute why is no one talking about the crazy amount of dog killing in this book? Hareton just casually stringing up puppies in the kitchen as nelly leaves Isabella 's dog hung immediately after she leaves with Heathcliff (again nelly) all the spaniels; all the dog bites it goes on. And on.
I didn't get this book the first go around but once you just let the badness (as in terrible person) wash over you you can't help but want to see what he's going to destroy next.

[Lucinda]

Ha, Ha, Katie, the dog hanging thing is something else! The Bronte sisters all depict abuse of animals as indictitive of a bad moral outlook, ie, Anne Bronte's Huntingdon hitting his dogs. (Hareton obviously has to reform his to be worthy of Cathy).
To be fair to Nelly, she does let down Isabella's spaniel from where it's being choked, dangling from the bush.
One of the problems with the Byronic model which Emily Bronte adopted is the total lack of a sense of the ridiculous which is required in taking seriously the posturings of a 'doomed soul' (from the point of view of happiness in this world, that is) adopting such a role. As you say, this was done by the Count of Monte Cristo. That's a particularly astute point.

I agree that one has to read the book more than once for the full extent of the depravity and gratuitious cruelty to sink in; it's so overwhelming. I don't see how anyone can find Heathcliff's brutal acts excusable, but at the risk of sounding pretentious and humourless myself, I agree with the Christian view that one should condemn the acts but not the tormented soul who performs them, but how anyone can fnnd Heathcliff in any way beguiling is beyond me.
Yet, even an intelligent critic like Winfred Gerin did so. In her autobiographies of Emily Bronte and Anne Bronte, she talks of critics 'misunderstanding' Heathcliff (though she admits that there are hints that he may not in fact be human, in true Gothic tradition). She condemns Arthur Huntingdon, the purely human villain of 'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall' in far stronger terms, though he is never violent to women or children.
I wonder if you might like to take a look at my blog post which facetiously suggests a meeting between Heathcliff and Huntindon?
https://sophieandemile.wordpress.com/...

[Jacquelyn]

I honestly believe that Heathcliff's Byronic status is because this most recent wave of fans have made him out to be so. I mean, Stephanie Meyer had Edward use Heathcliff as a parallel and in all honesty, Edward is not nearly as bad despite the fact that he is undead. Despite Edward making Heathcliff out to be the monster that he is, Edward himself does not act nearly as horribly as Heathcliff does and so the younger readers draw the wrong conclusions. Then Bella says she must be Cathy, of course, and Cathy I think is the stronger of the two because she was able to sacrifice her love for something that she desperately needed at the time, a comfortable living situation since women could not earn them for themselves. Heathcliff see's Cathy's logical choice as a betrayal and for some reason so does Bella and then that makes Cathy out to be a monster too!
I personally blame new author's using parallels to works without accurately representing the work and then the young readers draw their own conclusions before finally reading the original piece and then don't get it because while they are reading they subconsciously twist everything around their preconception.

[Lucinda]

An interesting point, Jacquelyn. I must admit to neither having read 'Twilight' nor seeing the films, but what you say makes sense of things that have puzzled me, as I have been a bit shocked at times as to how so many female readers can see a man who bullies women and children as in any way admirable.

[PriMa]

I think that's the whole point. Both Heathcliff and Cathy are selfish, horrible human beings, their only redeeming feature is the great love they have for each other. That's Heathcliff's attraction, i think, that a man so merciless and violent could love to such depth that hw would endure anything , that the loss of her, twice, first to marriage drove him to become so ruthless and secondly when he lost her to death it drove him slowly but surely insane.

[Lucinda]

An interesting point, Prima.
I wonder if many female readers find it alluring because they have a rather infantile desire to be 'the only one' with a love object, and it's primal in origin, if you'll forgive the Freudian slant?
Yet, is the relationship between them is true love, or a strange obsession that seems to have as much hate in it as love? There seems to be the 'sole mate' idea that obsesses many psychics going on here, with the 'he's more myself than I am' speech from Catherine.
There doesn't seem to be any physical passion in it, oddly enough. Anne Bronte makes a far more convincing task of conveying Helen Huntingdon's physical attraction to Arthur Huntingdon, and if Cathy admits to finding anyone physically attractive in the guarded language which could pass at the time, it was Edgar Linton.
Neither does there seem to be any tenderness in it, as Heathcliff behaves very roughly to Catherine on their last meeting, though she is at least seven months' pregnant, and dying.
Yet, both are in fact capable of being fond of other people. Charlotte Bronte commented how Heathcliff is fond of Nelly and Hareton, and Catherine is 'loyal to old attachments' like Nelly, and fond of Isabella, amongst others, and is very attached to Edgar.

[PriMa]

Valid point, maybe that's what makes Healthcliff attractive to women. The idea of being the sole recipient of a man's love, regard and attention. The idea that a man would love them so much as to never get over them, even 20 yrs after their death. A heady thought, although a little disturbing. I think in the book there isn't a question of physical love or attraction because their love is meant to be more than that, it transcends common lust, and is meant to show their bond in a much deeper way, their souls are joined. Their bond was formed in childhood.

[Lucinda]

I see what you are saying, and as you will see from the discussion above,PriMa, that is precisely what disturbs me most in women readers (particularly young ones) interpreting this abuser as a subject for romantic fantasy.
I don't generally like to be judgemental. But, because of the reactionary nature of such ideas ,I have felt I have to be outspoken and state frankly that I find it very disturbing that such a monstrous abuser as Heathcliff can be found attractive at all by women readers, particularly given his treatment of Isabella.
For a woman of these days to find beguiling the whole notion of a 'lover' character who is foul to other women, who loves only one (presumably these readers project themsevles into Cathy's place,not Isabella's), and who is even brutal to children, seems to hint at fantasies regressive, some hostility to other women and a return to infantile desires about being 'the favourite' etc.
Some readers who take the line that Heathcliff is 'so romantic' (in whatever sense) say they distinguish between fantasy and reality. Regrettably, I doubt the borders between the two are as strong as they insist, and notions of 'romance' carried over from fantasy characters can impinge on their behavior in reality.
Tragically, an awful lot of woman see Byronic characteristics in abusers and are accordingly attracted to them. Earlier on this thread, a doctor comments that is his professional experience in casualty.
Of course, that is extreme; but it is a real danger of such women readers seeing allure in trying to 'fix' a messed-up man, carrying over fantasies about the equally awful fictional Heathcliff.
Of course, just as one should distinguish between evil acts and their perpetrator in real life, so in stories, it's a good thing to distinguish between a character and his or her outrages. I feel sorry for the tormented Heathcliff; but his acts are inexcusable. He treats nobody decently, and this extends to his idol Cathy.
One of the things that intrigues me is that Heathcliff shows no sign of 'loving' Cathy in any sort spiritually uplifting way, or she him. Their mutual obsession is weirdly destructive and joyless, rather like the imprisoning bond between twins that sometimes happens.
But the more I learn about the Gondal poetry and Emily Bronte's fascination with the 'iron man' the 'doomed soul' and the question of his fate beyond the grave, the more I tend to think that this is not the love story that so many believe, but the revenge story of Jack Sharp combined with Gondal elements.
Jack Sharp took over his benefactor's property and behaved malevolently towards his family for no apparent reason. Emily learnt the story of his ingratitude in childhood, and here she gives some incentive in malice for Heathcliff by Hindley's blighting his hopes with Catherine by degrading him. She combines it with her conception of an ironlike 'doomed soul' of her Gondal poems, who cannot be moved to happiness even by nature (shades of 'The Ancient Mariner' when we think of it).
Unlike many readers and critics, I tend to think the author's metaphysical conceptions were far from certain. She was uncertain what happened to the unrepentant sinner and was possibly tormented by the thought of this. Anne Bronte (whom we must remember was her partner in the Gondal saga) believed in the final redemption of all souls. It is as if Emily had doubts of this.
I also personally find Heathcliff's Gothic histrionics rather ludicrous. Here's my blog post sending his behaviour up.
https://sophieandemile.wordpress.com/...

[Jacquelyn]

PriMa wrote: "I think that's the whole point. Both Heathcliff and Cathy are selfish, horrible human beings, their only redeeming feature is the great love they have for each other. That's Heathcliff's attraction..."

Well, I think it's sad that people see Cathy as a monster. She's a victim of her time because she clearly wanted to marry Heathcliff, but she knew very well that he couldn't provide a comfortable living for her, and that was not his fault either! She was smart to choose Edgar because he liked her fine and would treat her well, and give her a comfortable living arrangement for her and any children they had. Though in today's world that is seen as selfish and cold, in that time that was the smart decision, and I can not say I would have chosen any differently.

[Jacquelyn]

Lucinda wrote: "An interesting point, Jacquelyn. I must admit to neither having read 'Twilight' nor seeing the films, but what you say makes sense of things that have puzzled me, as I have been a bit shocked at ti..."

I wrote a whole paper on it in high school because Twilight prepared me for an epic love story (similar to how it did with Romeo and Juliet before I read it, only to let me down like it did WH) and when I read... well, what it is I was outraged! And I knew that had I not been prepared for something wholly different I would have liked it much more than I actually did. I think it's so wrong how author's portray certain classics in their books just to add a parallel (because I think they feel it makes them look smarter and makes their books seem more sophisticated) and then totally twist them around only to ruin them or distort their meaning for future generations who will more than likely want to read the books that inspired the author.

[Lucinda]

You are so right, Jacquelyn. It's rather like Disney imposing an ahistorical and generally right wing twist on legends like Robin Hood! Seriously, I suppose they tend to be influenced by the classics, but while they may have been inspired by them (as have we all) they shouldn't make artificial connections.
I do wonder, on that and a more prosaic note, what US readers make of the Yorkshire dialect in 'Wuthering Heights' and how on earth they make out what he is saying. I'm from the UK and I found it hard going myself.

[PriMa]

Jacquelyn wrote: "PriMa wrote: "I think that's the whole point. Both Heathcliff and Cathy are selfish, horrible human beings, their only redeeming feature is the great love they have for each other. That's Heathclif..."

Lucinda wrote: "Ertele wrote: "Cemre wrote: "I think there was one time where Linton Heathcliff refused to eat porridge. And there were a couple of times where they are seen as eating po..."

But Heathcliff never ..."

Lucinda wrote: "Ertele wrote: "Cemre wrote: "I think there was one time where Linton Heathcliff refused to eat porridge. And there were a couple of times where they are seen as eating po..."

But Heathcliff never ..."

Lucinda wrote: "Ertele wrote: "Cemre wrote: "I think there was one time where Linton Heathcliff refused to eat porridge. And there were a couple of times where they are seen as eating po..."

But Heathcliff never ..."


I don't think Cathy is a monster because she married to better her station in life, I think she is selfish because of how she treats her husband, her sister in law and everyone else around her. She winds people, is totally self centered and cares for no one but herself and possibly Heathcliff.
I have never seen a Disney movie in my life and have no disillusions about the realities of life, then or now.
Cathy is indeed a tragic figure but she brought a lot of it on herself.

[Lucinda]

PriMa wrote: "Jacquelyn wrote: "PriMa wrote: "I think that's the whole point. Both Heathcliff and Cathy are selfish, horrible human beings, their only redeeming feature is the great love they have for each other..."

Ettele (hope I've got the name right)
Sorry, I missed your post.
Goodness, you've done some diligent research on a recondite subject. I have to admit I was being facetious in a typically British way.
I never said that Heathcliff was a militant vegetarian or never ate meat, but the fact that he offers no better than porridge to a guest (Lockwood) for what we'll call for the sake of argument 'supper' indicates stinginess to me.
Also, the subject of a Byronic character supping up his porridge strikes me as purely ludicrous, but then I am unusual on this thread in finding many aspects of Heathcliff's posturings ridiculous.
The whole thing about social class and area, the differences between London and the provinces, and when 'luncheon' 'dinner' 'supper' and 'tea' was taken in the UK from the time of the late eighteenth century when this book was set until today is a subject that is hard for anyone not British to comprehend, and entirely nonsensical.
Suffice it to say that Heathcliff is guilty of rather more serious acts than forcing guests to eat porridge.

[Lucinda]

Goodness, PriMa, I am sure nobody was accusing you of being a Disney fan, or of having no conception of life's brutal realities; after all, you said you regard Heathcliff as having a horrible personality, which seems to me a detached take on the novel.
I was explaining why I do find it worrying why so many young women readers find him an alluring figure; as clearly, you don't, and how regressive is the desire to be adored by a man who is abusive to other women, which it seems too many women have.

[Jacquelyn]

PriMa wrote: "Jacquelyn wrote: "PriMa wrote: "I think that's the whole point. Both Heathcliff and Cathy are selfish, horrible human beings, their only redeeming feature is the great love they have for each other..."

Hmm... I'll have to give it another read to see how I feel about that! I was more concerned with Cathy and Heathcliff's interactions rather than Cathy as a solo character I think.

[Lucinda]

Interesting, Jacquelyn. I have to say, that something goes wrong with the portrayal of Catherine; she isn't fully realized, as I see it.
I do recall reading that a writer of the eighties suggested she wanted 'an open marriage' with Edgar Linton. Some hopes, eh?
But it's an intriguing idea. A good while further back I suggested this to C Lose Daily, and he contacted her (the critic, I mean; not Catherine).
At that time, we were also discussing the quasi incest theme. Heathcliff and Catherine are not genetically related; but they have been brought up as brother and sister. My recollection is, that some critics have suggested that EB did intend a real incest theme initially (very Byronic, given his relations with his half-sister) but realized Victorian censorship would make it impossible.

[Jacquelyn]

Lucinda wrote: "Interesting, Jacquelyn. I have to say, that something goes wrong with the portrayal of Catherine; she isn't fully realized, as I see it.
I do recall reading that a writer of the eighties suggested..."

Yep, I do remember debating that in my paper about the incestual themes. Pretty gothic. :/
I love Byron so much, even with all of his fuck-ups, because he really paved the way for our beloved Byronic heroes (even though they were already 200+ years in the making but just didn't have a name yet.)
I'm thinking I am just going to have to reread it to get a good grasp on Catherine because I was looking at them as a pair for my thesis. But I may even go back in and add a paragraph or two about Catherine herself to that paper because now I realize you can't really look at a couple as one entity without looking at each individual since the individuals make the duo.

[Lucinda]

I tend to think that they are both incomplete as individuals, Jacquelyn. What are either without their mutual obsession? What does Heathcliff ever talk about, for instance, if he's not talking about Catherine/and or revenge?
Typical of killjoy me not to enjoy those Byronic heroes, Jacquelyn!
I've often wondered what people would make of a Byronic heroine, and someone on this thread said it was interesting to think what people would make of a woman character who acted like Heathcliff?

[Jacquelyn]

Lucinda wrote: "I tend to think that they are both incomplete as individuals, Jacquelyn. What are either without their mutual obsession? What does Heathcliff ever talk about, for instance, if he's not talking abou..."

And that's exactly what would work in the paper. :) Except that bit of unexplored Cathy territory I neglected.
Aww, I know lots of people that don't like Byronic figures. I'm one of those typical girls that like Byronic figures because we like to think they can be changed/fixed/helped or find their brooding/mysterious nature sexy and alluring. (Don't ask me why, Byronic lovers just do!)
And it's interesting you say that because I later wrote a paper on Jane Eyre because I noticed that she was on a few lists for Top 10 anti-heroines. And that absolutely disgusted me. This was probably the least anti-heroic of any literary female characters and here people are, putting her on lists featuring villainesses and selfish creatures because she was a feminist character ahead of her time. So, I feel like if a woman did exactly what Heathcliff did with exactly the same motivation people would feel even more critically toward her because she is a woman and since the dawn of time, women have been evil creatures starting from the Garden of Eden in Genesis and only continuing on into Grendel's mother with Beowulf and further and further on until now we have good women being misrepresented as Byronic figures.

[Lucinda]

Lol, Jacquelyn. I've no doubt such an anti-heroine as a female Byronic character would be demonized. It's rather fun to visualise the outrage.
I can't imagine why readers thought Jane Eyre was selfish; she was a very emotionally responsive woman, and independent, which of course, is why Rochester had the good sense to see her potential as a companion.
I'm a real killjoy as regards romantic notions about Byronic heroes, aren't I? You won't be surprised to hear that when my daughter finishes University I'm thinking of doing a research MA myself; and gusess what on: 'Romance as a Factor in the Oppression of Women'.
Yup, as the cowboys are made to say in films (I don't know if they ever did, really).
Well, your own planned research sounds intriguing; and unlike mine, where research material should be reasonably plentiful.
As you'll see from my posts earlier on the thread, and I hope you don't find this offensive (as others have) it does concern me, that women today still think it's up to them, and an appealing role, to 'fix' an emotionally damaged man, and find the notion rather appealing.
Of course, such men say they want a (special) woman to fix them; but do they really want to change, or to stay the same, forever supposedly changing?
I have long believed that aloofness, brooding and mysteriousness is often just a pose, or plain emotional self obsession, rather like Pushkin's 'Eugene Onegin' (if you havne't read that already, I think you'd really enjoy that, by the way). 'Byronic' man (in real life as well as in fiction) often has nothing to say, like Heathcliff off the subject of his two obsessions ( Come to think of it, wasn't Heathcliff's uninteresting conversation one of the reasons she pursued the Linton's company early in WH? She tells him so).
I have often remarked that it is ironical that women are expected to fix the inside of a man's head (emotional caretaking) but not to mend things mechanical...

[Jacquelyn]

Lucinda wrote: "Lol, Jacquelyn. I've no doubt such an anti-heroine as a female Byronic character would be demonized. It's rather fun to visualise the outrage.
I can't imagine why readers thought Jane Eyre was sel..."

It's not offensive, I completely understand how backwards it is that women feel the need/desire to fix men but unfortunately, I think it's just all part of the maternal instinct to fix things that hurt their loved ones then the brooding mysterious factors I think just appeal to the darker part of the psyche that sees these factors as exciting. But I also don't see romance as being oppressive. I think romance is another part of the human experience that men and women want to experience and that it can be a beautiful thing as well as can be dangerous emotionally and even physically in some cases.

[Jacquelyn]

Cemre wrote: "As I've said nearly two years ago (and I am pleasantly surprised to see that the first discussion I've ever posted on rose from the death), Heathcliff would probably be seen as a feminist character..."

Personally I disagree that Heathcliff's female counterpart would be seen as a feminist figure and I'll tell you why:

women that speak up for themselves in respectful ways in literature are already demonized as it is, so give her the actions that Heathcliff made and she would be a pariah. A good few people unfortunately believe that feminism is about being anti-man and want women to be superior, but to me that agenda would belong to the anti-heroine. Plus, we always hear jokes about how men deal with their problems head on sometimes physically or with a direct discussion and then they get on with their lives, but women feel the need to be sneaky about it and make it carry on and on, then always hold a grudge even when their "revenge" is complete. Heathcliff dealt with his emotions in a very sneaky and malicious manner and it is no stretch of the imagination that a woman would do this, but while Heathcliff as a male was almost forgiven by some fans because of his sad childhood or because of his Byronic status, the female counterpart would be viewed as a bitch and other names because it's such a typical "woman" way to deal with hurt feelings.

[Lucinda]

Fascinating comments, Jacquelyn and Cemre.
Jacquelyn: That is a fair point. Women are in this society brought up to be far more in touch with their emotions than men, and when women see a man who is emotionally damaged, that unlucky wish to 'fix' things (because she is so much more skilled in this area) does come into play not only through role playing, but also through compassion.
I so agree that real love is an elevating experience. It may be that defining terms is half of the problem about communicating on these issues. As I see it, a form of passionate sexual love between a woman and a man based on equality and mutual respect is worlds apart from the sort of unrealistic 'romance' which is propogated in 'romantic novels', where the men (usually) have all the power of all sorts. Even in the paranormal stuff he's typically Leader of the Pack of Werewolves to her novice. I think it is the predominance of this sort of stuff that has so dismayed me.
Welcome back, Cemre. What you say both about Byronic/Heathcliff females and about Heathcliff behaving in an underhand way, and how that is seen as a highly female way to take revenge, is absolutely fascinating. You're right, and I have thought myself that Heathcliff's obsession with Catherine, his identifying with her and having no other ruling passions, is characteristic of a female brought up to build a life about a man.
On his lack of being a raconteur, I agree that 'All Work and No Play Makes Jack a Dull Boy', but while I have not read the chronology for ages, didn't he have some years between Mr Earnshaw's picking him up in Liverpool and Mr Earnshaw's death to learn English? At that age, picking up another language is easy.
But even as an adult, he has little enough to say off the topic of his obsessions; this might be ascribed to conversational miserliness, it's true; but I wonder. Does the author make him say so little because he is a rather flat character who doesn't have much to say?
Yes, everyone would hate a women who tried to act like Heathcliff, and more than they would a man; that's what fascinates me. Why should this be? Is it because it is underhand or is it because then she would Have No Respect ?
I have heard that in fact, legally Heathcliff would not have been able to get hold of the Grange, etc, but I think this is a matter of dispute.

[Jacquelyn]

Lucinda wrote: "Fascinating comments, Jacquelyn and Cemre.
Jacquelyn: That is a fair point. Women are in this society brought up to be far more in touch with their emotions than men, and when women see a man who i..."

You're right! Defining terms is half of the battle to bridge the gap in communication! See, I don't read much adult romance, mostly YA (and mostly the paranormal stuff) and in my YA romance novels, the woman is typically at the bottom of the pack for a certain time, because that's how the book starts so that is the character's conflict and struggle, but by the end of the series she had figured out how to make herself stronger and more capable and is an equal, sometimes even surpassing, her love interest. These are the kinds of stories I enjoy. Then there are those stories where the girl already starts off being stronger than the boy, Hunger Games for example or Throne of Glass. In Throne of Glass Celaena (Aelin) has to be saved from herself in an emotional way because she learned to be stronger than men for so long that she lost touch with her humanity and blocked herself off from emotion, so while she was forced to feel it she had no idea how to cope. So in this case I appreciated her love interest (the most recent one) because he did finally help her come to terms with her grief and put it to rest even if it does come up again, as most traumas/tragedies do.

This is why I love Jane Eyre so much more than Wuthering Heights (as being portrayed as romance novels) because Jane and Rochester, though they were not equals in the beginning, were trying to find their way to becoming equals, and then fate forced them into being equals in a way that would be more realistic in that time than their original plan of action (to get married and screw what everyone else said/thought about it...) Wuthering Heights is not a romance novel. I don't know why so many people swear up and down that it is (probably going back to the Twilight rant I had earlier and probably from several misinformed instructors teaching it that way to their students in the past too). Wuthering Heights is a gothic novel in its definition of what the Gothic genre is. It's disturbing because it's relatable in its dysfunction and horrific in content. Then we add some of the disturbing incestual themes and ghosts and obsession and we just have a textbook example of the gothic genre.

[Lucinda]

Jacquelyn: That sounds really good, and very different from so many romance novels. It is one of the ways I think they should be heading, if author's aspire for literary respectability for the genre.
I so agree about WH being a Gothic story,not a romance; but I do think a lot of readers do read very superficially. Many people read my own spoof Gothic, full of other-the-top Gothic absurdities, as 'straight'.
Cemre: Sorry about mix up, Yes, that was Jacquelyn's insight.
Ha, Ha, re Heathcliff's conversation, I spent most of my childhood amongst farming communities, and don't tend even to hear such talk as 'conversation' accordingly; interesting.
I agree Heathcliff is depicted cleverly, not showing too much of him so that the reader doesn't see that he isn't fully realised, and neither is Cathy. That is one of the early tools for writer to learn, how to keep an element of mystery about a character who otherwise might come to pall on the reader if 'seen from the inside' and EB did it cleverly.
Now, it's interesting. I don't like superficial people; and one of my least favourite characters in fiction is Charley Kinraid, the superficial opportunist lover in 'Sylvia's Lovers'. I despise him for remarrying six months after discovering that he's lost Sylvia, whom he's sworn to love for life. But on the other hand, I think Heathcliff's existing frozen in two adolescent passions (one for Cathy, one for revenge on Hindley and Linton) is pathetic.
There's no pleasing me, is there?

[Lucinda]

Lucinda, don't you think that your point of view is slightly sexist as well ? When WH was first published, it wasn't considered a romance novel. Almost none of the reviews even mentioned Catherine. Everybody was convinced that it was written by a man. It was wild and messy, but it was still considered a book about the evil side of mankind. Then, the author's gender was revealed, and the book IMMEDIATELY became a love story. The difference between the reviews before the reveal and after it can make someone cry. It's tragic really. Heathcliff even says that he isn't a romance novel hero. To think that this was supposed to be a romance novel is linking the book with author's gender. Accusing Bronte of romanticising a brutal hero is almost sexist in itself, because everybody was sure that he was supposed to be a villian ("evil genius", "beastly") when the author was thought to be male. You and everybody think that he's romanticized because people have a hard time believing that a female can write a male being that she doesn't fancy. (Heathcliff isn't even described that often. If anything, Cathy Jr.'s flaxen hair is described more often.)
Are you sure that you like this novel ? It doesn't seem to be the case. All the things you've said about its author are very belittling and filled with weird psychoanalizing. I hate to say this to you, but "the poor Brontes they never left their home and were terrorized under their brutal father that's why they wrote such weird things" is largely a myth. Was Emily eccentric ? Yes. Did she travel around the world ? No. But she could play the piano, knew German and French, went to Belgium, read many classics and was considered more level-headed than Charlotte.

Cemre: I didn't see this earlier post you made, as in fact they weren't showing up on my emails. Only just seen it, and various others, sorry not to respond.

Actually', I mixed you up with someone earlier on this thread who exchanged a laugh with me about Heathcliff's Gothic excesses, hence my message! I don't think you find him absurd, as I do.

Quick answer to above post: No, I don't think my view of WH is particularly influenced by sexism. If you scroll back (or have a look at my posts on WH on my blog) I have said several times that I don't think Heathcliff was meant to be a' romantic hero' and I do think that modern readers who read it with through Romance Tinted Glasses make a great error. That was one of the things that made me start this discussion.
I think women can write very strong novels, and that's a goal for which I aim myself.
Do I like the novel? In a word, no. But I have never claimed anywhere that I 'liked' it, or that it was a favourite novel of mine, or don't consider it to have many flaws. I find it intriguing. I dislike Heathcliff's brutality towards women and children too much to enjoy it. I find all all the gratuitous cruelty in it melancholy. I do admire some of the strength of the writing, but I think it is full of flaws, and in many ways, Anne Bronte's 'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall' and Jane Eyre seem to me superior.
Re; 'weird psychoanalyses', I do think psychological tools can help us a lot in understanding literature, used critically, as they should in real life.
Is my attitude towards Emily Bronte belittling? I would say not; it's critical; I think the pendulum has swung too far in favour of regarding the novel uncritically from the initial hostility.
I am even critical of Shakespeare's 'King Lear'. One should be critical of everything, but one's own new born baby!
I do know about Emily Bronte's travels to Belgium, etc, and accomplishments. I was brought up in isolated locations myself, so I would hardly condemn anyone else for it, though I was eager to explore life in the wider community.
If you were to read my blog, you would probably discover that I am a great admirer of the work of Anne Bronte, who came from the same background as Emily.
I hope that covers your remarks.

[Lucinda]

I haven't thought this discussion generally is going round in circles,Cemre. I've enjoyed getting different insights from different people with varying interpretations the novel. I've also met some really fun people on this thread.
I was rather startled by the post you left which you say you had rather I ignore, not because of the strong wording (which I assume is partly because you say English is not your first language; 'here 'weird' is a word usually used colloquially as an insult) but because you seemed to have misinterpreted some of the points I had made, ie, about the author not intending the novel to a 'romance' and not intending Heathcliff to be a romantic hero?
Perhaps this is because I often use typically British irony? I love a tongue-in-cheek laugh; unless that is taken into account, my remarks may well seem 'weird'.
I agree that we have to disagree about our interpretations and appreciation of this novel. I think its fully possible to introduce realistic, multi-dimensionsal main characters into a Gothic setting and adventure. In fact, I think that makes it far more believable. And besides, there is too much purple prose, such as the line about Cathy gnashing her teeth 'as if she would drive them to splinters'.
You're right that I have little sympathy with the notion of Heathcliff's 'underprivileged ' background as an explanation for his abuse of the vulnerable. I find him pathetic, 'a poor, suffering fellow creature' but wholly inadmirable.
As he is as a landowner described as a 'cruel hard landlord' , far from being any sort of rebel, once in a position of power, he exploits his tenants (no doubt he goes in for enclosures). A lot of readers seem to miss that description, but it's very telling. He is no sort of Robin Hood, for sure!
As I tend to side with the loser, I would point out the flaws in the novel less, if I saw less glowing, uncritical admiration of it and less sentimental stuff written about Heathcliff as a 'romantic' character and more posts about its weaknesses. I wouldn't say I have reviewed it any more harshly than I have other classics I consider rather over estimated.

[Lucinda]

Everyone, I am perturbed about something I've seen before. A Goodreads member was on this thread and made some very perceptive and humourous comments, and looking back, I see that they've been deleted. My replies are still there; not hers.
I 've seen this sort of thing before, on other websites, and it always concerns me, because to me it indicates that the person felt intimidated about expressing her opinions and removed them. Goodreads, of course, have a policy about abuse (as distinct from debate), but I suspect it could be more effective. If she just became bored with Goodreads, then I feel she would have left without deleting her comments. I'm not saying it was anything to do with this thread.

[Lucinda]

Cemre wrote: "Sorry for my histerical previous post. Just ignore it.

I think there was one time where Linton Heathcliff refused to eat porridge. And there were a couple of times where they are seen as eating po..."

Cemre, I didn't realise that this apology was addressed to me, or I would have ignored the said previous post, as you requested; I thought it was addressed to the reader who took seriously my remarks about the Porridge For Dinner/Supper aspect to Heathcliff's character, although I couldn't see why!
You have an interesting point about Heathcliff opposing the civilised influence of which the family at Thrushcross Grange are an embodiment.
Someone commented on here that the scene of Hareton and Cathy at the end represents a possibility of what might have been possible for Heathcliff, if he had been able to marry Cathy.
That is an arresting thought. I do think Hareton is rather more magnanimous than Heathcliff ever showed signs of being, but it could just be possible that he might have showed such characteristics. After all, on the few occasions when he lets his guard down in a normal human way (not when he goes in for histrionics with Cathy), ie, when he says to the younger Cathy 'I've made myself a monster to you' and when he sees that Hareton is upset and says, 'What's to do, lad?' then he does show a certain capacity for human warmth.
There is a very sad bit earlier. When Hindley is 'just beginning to smile' when Hareton is born, the doctor tells him that his wife won't live. Of course, at this time, he acted as a brutal oppressor to Heathcliff (( don't know why Heathcliff didn't leave such an awful household earlier, as boys were seen as capable of doing a man's work much earlier in those days, and try and put himself in a better position to marry Cathy, while staying in touch with her; but that for purposes of the plot things had to work out otherwise.) but he did have the capacity for tenderness in him in his adoration of Frances, and his deterioration is highly tragic. At one point Nelly remembers playing with him as a boy and sets out to try and reason with him, but gives up on meeting the hostile toddler Hareton.

[Danielle]

I find Cathy and Heathcliff to be fascinating characters but to be honest, the way they are both romanticized, together and individually, surprises me.

Heathcliff's issues are clear as day but Cathy's ability to manipulate is something I feel tends to be overlooked. Her actions towards Isabella and Heathcliff over their possible marriage were particularly highlighting. She was the hand dangling the mouse to the cat.

Heathcliff and Cathy's story is, in my opinion, a perfect example of a relationship between a sociopath and a narcissist.

Cathy is just as bad as Heathcliff. She even tells us herself; 'we are made of the same stuff. I am Heathcliff' (not the exact quote but I hope the gist is clear) Even Cathy's love for Heathcliff is a reflection of her own ego. By loving Heathcliff above all others, she loves herself above all others because SHE IS Heathcliff

Cathy is as selfish as Heathcliff is cruel. She is as stubborn as he is obsessive.

That is the tragedy. What they have in common is what keeps them apart.

In my opinion, the story between Heathcliff and Cathy is not a romantic love story at all (though I can somewhat understand the appeal of finding that one person who not only sees the darkest parts of you but accepts you and even shares them with you)

Heathcliff and Cathy love each other because they understand each other in a way that nobody else can but they are both restricted by their glaring personality flaws when it comes to turning that passion, that familiarity and that love into something good. They are TOO similar to help each other grow. They have the same emotional deficiencies that prevent them from being able to help each other, or their relationship, grow.

It becomes a tragedy because neither Cathy or Heathcliff KNOW that their is something inherently wrong with them and by finding each other, their actions become validated and their pathologies become something beautiful and fulfilling.

The real love story has always been between young Catherine and Hareton, in my opinion.

They are what Heathcliff and Catherine could have been if they weren't both the same; selfish, cruel, manipulative and emotionally damaged

They are products of their environment but where Heathcliff holds grudges against those who wronged him, Hareton is quick to forgive.

Where the elder Catherine is stubborn until the end and set in her tempers, the younger Cathy is able to learn the error of her ways and feel remorse for her actions that hurt others.

Their story to me is the real romance (and such a beautiful example as well)

That's just my read on Wuthering Heights. Not the usual or most popular one, I know, but I will say that, however it is read, this book is a masterpiece and the characters amd their dynamics are utterly fascinating

(sorry for any typos. I'm on my phone) xx

[Lucinda]

Very fascinating insights, and very concisely put, Danielle. Many of them mirrror my own, so I'm bound to be impressed, ha, ha! I so agree about the real love story of the novel being that of the younger Catherine and the magnanimous Hareton. On the phone or not, you couldn't have put it better, I think.

[Lucinda]

Those financial speculations are very astute, Cemre. We are never told if Cathy has any sort of a dowry as an inheritance from her father; how far they were common in the 'Yeoman type' class to which the Earnshaws belonged, I don't know, either.

[Ruby]

Lucinda wrote: "Everyone, I am perturbed about something I've seen before. A Goodreads member called Mary was on this thread and made some very perceptive and humourous comments, and looking back, I see that they'..."

Even comments on a classical mythology can be subject to censure...

[Lucinda]

'Everyone, I am perturbed about something I've seen before. A Goodreads member was on this thread and made some very perceptive and humourous comments, and looking back, I see that they've been deleted. My replies are still there; not hers.
I 've seen this sort of thing before, on other websites, and it always concerns me, because to me it indicates that the person felt intimidated about expressing her opinions and removed them. Goodreads, of course, have a policy about abuse (as distinct from debate), but I suspect it could be more effective. If she just became bored with Goodreads, then I feel she would have left without deleting her comments. I'm not saying it was anything to do with this thread.'


Hello, Ruby. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Certainly remarks on any subject can be criticised, but that
isn't what I mean. I mean quite offensive remarks of the sort that occur more often than they should on discussions on Amazon. I'm not asserting that anyone on this thread is guilty of that; but I have seen it happen on various discussions on Goodreads.

[Lucinda]

Rahim

I do not like to be unwelcoming to people on this thread, but even taking into account from the phrasing of your post that English is obviously not your first language, that is so clearly a troll comment that I shan't trouble to waste my time by answering it.

[Nancy]

Maybe it's because some women like bad boys.

[Lucinda]

A belated welcome to Nancy. Thank you for your comment. I take it you have read some of the thead, and seen the extended discussion between myself and some readers about the differences and similarities between the behaviour of 'Bad boys' and that of Heathcliff, some taking one point of view, some another.
I don't think I have anything new to say on that. I think in Heathcliff Emily Bronte was exploring her fascination with the concept of the unrepentant sinner and his final account. Anne of course was a believer in unversal salvation, and as Emily co-operated with her in their imaginings, one may assume that they had many ideas in common. She probably depicted Heathcliff as being as bad as could be in order to explore this assurance, and the idea of the emptiness of revenge, of course.
Certainly, some readers may interpret the book as intending that the author intended Heathcliff as a hero (his bullying of women and children included).

[Diana]

I'm thinking that this was Emily Bronte's idea of a "romantic" guy: dark, brooding, mysterious, unpredictable. I think that today he would be classified as a domestic abuser. My impression was that Emily Bronte did not get out very much. I'm thinking that a Jane Austen character would have pity on the child, but would keep the grown-up Heathcliff at arm's length.