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).

[Maxine]

C-Cose wrote: "Maxine wrote: "Heathcliff is a romantic hero in the sense of Byronic romanticism and, in that sense, he is fairly typical: moody, broody, destructive to self and others, flaunts his opposition to c..."

Sorry, I guess I was being a bit pedantic - I was responding more to the original question about Heathcliff as Byronic anti-hero than about my own feelings - but, no, I never saw Heathcliff as a romantic hero in the kind of modern-day romance genre definition. He always did seem more like a Byronic Childe Haroldesque force of nature to me - sneaky, cruel, unpredictable, and untameable, perhaps, like a hurricane, fascinating to watch from a distance but not very pleasant to be caught in its destructive path - more romanticism than romantic. I suppose today he would be the ultimate 'bad boy' and I've never found bad boys particularly attractive in literature or in real life. When it comes to literary romantic figures (using a more modern definition of romantic), I've always preferred Jane Austen's heroes to the Brontes' and I have never understood the fascination some people have with sociopaths which, using a less literary definition, Heathcliff would certainly be. If he were a real person alive today, someone should ask about his history of bed wetting since we already know about his cruelty to small animals.

[Lucinda]

The discussion continues fascinating. It's really interesting to get all these points of view from intelligent readers.

Interesting, too, that so far no male reader has partipated (I can never use that word without thinking of Nosferatu and his use of it!). There was one discussion I read recently on Wuthering Heights where a male reader seemed to be expressing serious admiration for Heathcliff, and I don't think he was winding others up...Hmmm.

I'm sure nobody wants me to reiterate my view about how much more tortured and therefore abusive the unfortunate Heathcliff is than your typical 'bad boy'!

Emma; That's an interesting quote from Wicki.

[Gryph]

Maxine wrote: "Sorry, I guess I was being a bit pedantic - I was responding more to the original question about Heathcliff as Byronic anti-hero than about my own feelings ..."

No worries. I'd completely agree with your more modern examples.

I'm beginning to doubt whether there would be a consensus regarding Heathcliff's traits were he questioned today. Mental Health professionals could write disparate theses on him ... ad nauseum ... and any ambulance-chasing attorney would likely get him off.

[Gryph]

Lucinda wrote: "The discussion continues fascinating. It's really interesting to get all these points of view from intelligent readers.

Interesting, too, that so far no male reader has partipated (I can never us..."

Ummm Lucinda ... last time I checked, I was most definitely male; I have the parts and birth records to prove it ... lol :)

[Voronwer]

Maxine is spot on. Wuthering Heights falls right into romantic movement and Heathcliff captures the most important aspects of the movement. After an age of reason, Heathcliff is a character who almost embodies every aspect of that movement. He is all about emotion, the good sides (his love for Catherine) and the bad (his spite, his cruelty, his vengeance). He is like the moors that play such a vital role in the book: beautiful, but dangerous.

It's his connection to the moors that plays a huge part too. When he's young and out with Catherine, Heathcliff holds the promise of being a good man, because of his love for her. It's his mistreatment and Catherine forsaking him that turns him onto the wrong path. It's men who make him into that cruel character he becomes. It's his love for Catherine that destroys him, but he stays loyal to her. It's a love that's consuming and destructive in its failings, but they're both swept up in it and it holds such a strength that even after her death, it keeps haunting him. I think in part his character is used to show both sides of such a strong emotion, how it can strengthen someone and how it can destroy them.

In a way, I think his story continues in Hareton, showing how Healthcliff could have been if not for the cruelty of others. And how Catherine and him could have really been together if things had gone right.

Does this make Heathcliff a character I'd want to be in a relationship with in real life? Hell no, but he is interesting. He is romantic. Without a doubt. Perhaps not in our modern definition (though I will argue that he has some pretty damn romantic lines), but he is a character who fits right into Romanticism. He is a character who intrigued me when I read the book for the first time, and who continued to intrigue me.

[Cateline]

Voronwer wrote: "When he's young and out with Catherine, Heathcliff holds the promise of being a good man, because of his love for her. It's his mistreatment and Catherine forsaking him that turns him onto the wrong path..."

I have to disagree to the extent that if he was not psychologically capable of those hateful acts, no exterior influences would have been capable of making him do those things. The capability was already there, he was not magically changed to a monster. He already was, only hidden till that point. IMO.

[Emma]

Cateline: There is a really interessting book about that subject (I mean werether outside influences can turn somebody into a monster) and that book is called "Victor Frankenstein" (I should really read it and than we could have some interessting discussions. But that's not something for this topic. ;) )

[Voronwer]

Cateline wrote: "I have to disagree to the extent that if he was not psychologically capable of those hateful acts, no exterior influences would have been capable of making him do those things..."

I get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree. I do wonder that if someone has only known and seen unkindness, if he's capable of being kind. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses, if someone (just like Heathcliff) breaks the law, it is still their choice to act like their abuser(s) did. Heathcliff could have acted differently, but he didn't want to.

But what I was referring to is another stance in the Romance movement. Nature is good and pure. Man is good in his nature, but society restricts him and even turns him bad. Which is, indeed, a theme in Frankenstein too.

[[deleted user]]

Jeni wrote: "I have never liked anything the Bronte's have written. Heathcliff, especially, repulsed me from the first moment I read about him. He's mean, spiteful, tyrannical, hateful, deceptive, and awful. ..."

This is exactly my opinion too. If he'd at least tried, even a tiny bit, to redeem himself, there was always a chance that I might have seen the hero in him. As it was, I hated him from the moment I met him and to this day, can't understand Catherine's love for him at all. Yes, the writing, the betwitching way the story was told, all that side of it was wonderful. But the man himself was the complete opposite of a 'much beloved' hero in my mind.

[Lone]

Heathcliff is a characterization of the concept 'Noble Savage' hence him behaving like an animal while at the same time being capable of feeling love for Catherine.

The same one can say about the monster in the novel 'Frankenstein'.

See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_sa...

[Gina]

Good lord, Lucinda, thank you for posting this! In fact, it is the reason I can't bear to watch the movie versions or re-read the book..I violently disliked both Cathy and Heathcliff, and life's too short for that, in my humble opinion. And I agree the movies tend to gloss over his vicious, abusive treatment of Isabella, and romanticizing such characters, and excusing their behavior because they are 'in love' is very dangerous ground.

[[deleted user]]

Penelope wrote: "I believe that people who find Heathcliff a romantic, will also find that main character in the Shades of Grey series romantic as well. Yuck!

I suppose really, Wuthering Heights as "Romantic Liter..."
That's why I've put Wuthering Heights in a category of its own: Anti-love story.

[Michele]

I don't like Heathcliff at all. But he is undoubtedly a romantic. All the definitions of romance I can find state that it is to do with the heightened emotions and passions relating to love of a sexual/non platonic nature.
Heathcliff is defined by his love and passion and all his actions stem from it. It may be twisted and unpleasant but it is entirely motivated by his own 'take' on what love is.
It isn't nice, it isn't healthy - but it is romantic.
The problem is that romance is not a nice, healthy concept in any shape or form.
People are confusing romance with something else.
I think they are mixing up honour, goodness and self-sacrifice with romance. They are not the same - a person can be the most romantic creature ever and be duplicitous, dishonourable and violent and most of the negative unpleasant characteristics. All they need to be romantic is motivated by love. It doesn't always mean they are going to do good things because they are motivated by lurve. They might steal, kill, or even rape.
In literature Romance has a massive place and so do dysfunctional relationships. It would be wrong to leave out the strong pull such relationships have for people - because in real life they do attract. All the writer can do is put in the warnings (as did Emily Bronte) and hope the readers will have the intelligence to read them.
Those who do will, those who don't won't. Part of what we learn from Wuthering Heights is that some people are determined to self-destruct - no matter what anyone else does to try and protect them.

[Gryph]

Michele wrote: "I don't like Heathcliff at all. But he is undoubtedly a romantic. All the definitions of romance I can find state that it is to do with the heightened emotions and passions relating to love of a ..."

Greetings Michele,

I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions of romantic from, but I'd be interested to know. From Cambridge (online -- American usage):

1. Relating to love or to an affectionate, loving relationship.
2. If something is romantic, it is exciting and mysterious and has a strong effect on your emotions.
3. Romantic ideas and people are not practical or related to real life.

The British English definitions are similar.

While I agree that Heathcliff is a character written in an according to the style of "Romantic" writing for that time, I don't agree that the character himself is romantic.

I can assure you that I'm not "mixing up honour, goodness and self-sacrifice with romance." All of these character traits can certainly be an expression of love or romance, but they are not a requirement--in my experience.

Heathcliff certainly exemplifies the Bad Boy, the one some will want to change, the Dangerous Love ... but not romantic.

[Voronwer]

Penelope wrote: "I believe that people who find Heathcliff a romantic, will also find that main character in the Shades of Grey series romantic as well. Yuck!

I suppose really, Wuthering Heights as "Romantic Liter..."

Hey now, all that swearing is unnecessary. ;o)

I think if anyone considers Heathcliff/Catherine healthy, that they didn't understand the book very well. Do I think their relationship is how love should be? No, but then neither did Brontë. If there is one relationship she paints as ideal, it's Hareton and Catherine.

I very much doubt Shades of Grey can even compare to Wuthering Heights. It's fan fiction with very little substance. At least, if it's like the books it's based on. Honestly, I might think Heathcliff and Catherine are more healthy than Edward and Bella. =oP

[Gryph]

Voronwer wrote: "Penelope wrote: "I believe that people who find Heathcliff a romantic, will also find that main character in the Shades of Grey series romantic as well. Yuck!

I suppose really, Wuthering Heights a..."

Sweet heavenly peaches Voronwer :)

It's odd how discussions play out on this forum. I'm involved in another thread discussing the "romantic" love and need that Romeo & Juliet share to the eventual risk of their own lives.

In that discussion, Edward and Bella were brought up as current living examples of how that same drama plays out in real life. As I haven't read 50 Shades of Grey (i.e. poorly shaded schmalz), I assumed that the poster was referring to characters in the Twilight saga. Realizing this now, I am no more convinced about their "romantic" entanglement.

I've actually read (and own) some excellent books in the genre of 50 Shades. Everything that I've heard, from those that share similar interests, has led me to avoid this "contribution" based on its terribly poor writing, glaring inaccuracies about the practice, and woefully under-realized characters.

I suspect that comparing Edward (50 Shades) to Heathcliff would be like comparing Bush 43 to Abraham Lincoln based on their shared Republican status.

[Cateline]

Emma wrote: "Cateline: There is a really interessting book about that subject (I mean werether outside influences can turn somebody into a monster) and that book is called "Victor Frankenstein" (I should really..."

I would be most interested in reading that one. Do you have an author or link?

[Voronwer]

Cateline wrote: "Emma wrote: "Cateline: There is a really interessting book about that subject (I mean werether outside influences can turn somebody into a monster) and that book is called "Victor Frankenstein" (I ..."

I'm assuming she meant Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18...

[Cateline]

Voronwer wrote: "I get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree. I do wonder that if someone has only known and seen unkindness, if he's capable of being kind. ..."

I'd have to suppose there are views on either side of that fence. It's all so subjective.

My Aunt lived to be 93, and was one of the wisest women (or man for that matter :) that I've known), and was a great observer of human nature. No formal training, but still, lots of what I guess would be called "field experience". She always said if a person was not emotionally/psychologically capable of, murder, for example nothing could compel them to kill.
I tend to believe that is true.



But I really don't want to derail the discussion by going too far off on a tangent. As is my MO. lol

[Emma]

Michele: one thing is true and that is that Heathcliff is a very passionated character. And maybe it's that passion that causes a certain amount of attractivness. When you think of it: Catherine too is a very passionated character. Think how she killed herself (because that's what she did) after the fight of Edgar and Heathcliff. And maybe that's what made them such a good but dangerous pair.

Voronwer: It's also very true that Catherines and Heahtcliffs realationship certainly isn't a healty one. I'm sure nobody doubts about that. If you love someone you would try to make him/her better even when you can't be togheter not destroy eatchother. Even when Catherine dies he isn't giving her any rest. Remember the most beautyfull but also darkest part of the novel "May she wake in torment! I only have one prayer, I'll repeat it 'till my tong stiffens. Catherine Earnshaw may you not rest as long as I'm living. You said I killed you, haund me then. I know the murdered do hunt there murderers and I know that ghost have wandered on earth. Be with me always, take any form, drive me mad! Only do not leave me in this abbys where I cannot find you. It's unuterble I can't live whithout my life. I can't live without my soul" I know this part by hard because I find it so beautfull passionated but I certainly don't want my lover to scream that at my funeral!

c-cose: "2. If something is romantic, it is exciting and mysterious and has a strong effect on your emotions." I'm sorry but if that's one of the possible definitions of romantic I think Heathcliff truly is romantic: he is a very exciting character, his past makes him mysterious and he has a very strong effect on my emotions (that's why I lost the count on how many times I have read the book).

[Cateline]

Voronwer wrote: "I'm assuming she meant Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18..."


Ahh. I had the impression it was a non-fiction work with a fanciful name. :)

[Lucinda]

CClose, Whoops, my apologies, I am glad a man has joined the discussion, can't have looked at the picture properly (mutters, with red face, blame this conjunctivitis!).

I read an interseting introduction to an Oxford edition of the story which remarks that maybe Catherine is hoping for a Shelleyian type of non-possessive love,and of course, Heathcliff and Edgar Linton wouldn't stand for it. An intriguing idea, and of course, in the Victorian age Emily Bronte could never have published a novel advocating that. Yet the relationship of Catherine and Heathcliff still strikes me as oddly asexual in its depiction. Or was it naivity in the author? So hard to say...

[Gryph]

Lucinda wrote: "CClose, Whoops, my apologies, I am glad a man has joined the discussion, can't have looked at the picture properly (mutters, with red face, blame this conjunctivitis!).

I read an interseting intr..."

No worries Lucinda. I've found that many people have such difficulty with my name that my gender gets lost in the interpretation. Also, my pic is from my recent wedding so it's a little difficult to distinguish me from my hubbie--the photographer got my best side ... the back of my head :)

The introduction that you referenced is mighty intriguing!! Seeing Catherine in the light of someone that wants to influence Heathcliff "from afar" sheds a completely different light on their relationship. To me, it introduces elements of experimenting, observing and "quantum effect" on her view of him. Very interesting!!!!

You're absolutely right in how difficult it is to fully understand Bronte's motivations behind these characters. On the upside, we're still discussing them, and her works, many years after they were penned.

[Lucinda]

CClose, I wish I could remember the name of the edition where I read the introduction. The Oxford Classics, or something. It is certainly true that Catherine is not jealous of the idea of Heathcliff marrying Isabella 'So the problem is that I am not jealous:?' she says, but she says also that she is too fond of her sister-in-law to hand her over to such a man.She seems under no illusions about his character.

Everyone - welcome new people, there is such a lot of posts I'm amazed,and delighted to encounter so much deep thought on this issue. The whole issue of what is meant by 'romanticism' (in Jane Austen it extends to Marianne Dashwood's worship of nature) is so complex. I think what is currently meant by 'romantic love' and 'romantic' characters, differs greatly from the eighteenth/early ninteenth century 'romanticism' but I make no claims to expert knowledge on the subject...

[Gryph]

Lucinda wrote: "CClose, I wish I could remember the name of the edition where I read the introduction. The Oxford Classics, or something. It is certainly true that Catherine is not jealous of the idea of Heathclif..."

Oh ... so you agree that the back of my head is my best side then?!?!? LMAO!!!!! [Not something you said, just something that you didn't address :)]

You realize that I now have a new item on my ever-growing ... yet never decreasing ... to-do list? I will find that edition "will thee, nil thee" so that I can reread WH with that knowledge!!! I declare it to be so ... lol :)

[Amy]

I'm very intrigued by this very intelligent discussion! I must re-read Wuthering Heights soon. What I do remember from this novel is that Heathcliff, crazy and disturbed as he is, cannot separate healthy feelings of love for Catherine from a dangerous, destructive obsession. To me, he is not romantic, he is evil and spiteful. Is there something sexy and mysterious about him? Yes because he is full of passion. Would I be scared of him if I had to talk to him? Yes :) Really, the only redeeming thing about Heathcliff or Catherine for that matter is the love/connection of their souls. They were a match - although maybe a match made in hell.

[Lucinda]

C-Cose; In such a good looking person, it is hard to choose between the back and the front, or the side...
I am a muddle head for not remembering the name,or the name of the editor!

Amy: Welcome, looks like I'm doing some boosting of re-readings of Emily Bronte and her critics, now, why didn't I succeed in interesting anyone in discussing Gaskell's 'Sylvia's Lovers' (jolly, sociable but superficial hero- I had severe critcisms of him, too, ironically, but not as much as of Heathcliff)?

[Emma]

Sorry for the confusion Cateline and Voronwer: yes I ment "Frankenstein" but the dutch version I read was translated as "Victor Frankenstein" by Marry Shelly.

[Sara]

Hi, Lisa.

Lisa wrote: "I just thought that she would know how much her decision would hurt Heathcliff but she went ahead and did it anyway...then spent all her time at Thrushcross Grange whining petulantly at everyone!"

I understand your reaction. At the time I read it, I saw it differently. I thought that she had seen the marriage as the way out of Wuthering Heights' bleakness and stubornely decided that it was the only way. But I also thought that, the reason why she fell ill after searching the moors for Heathcliff, was partially from guilt.

Plus, (ironically now) if you put yourself in Catherine's shoes you'll see she does have every reason for being petulant with the Lintons: she agreed to get married for her sake and for Heathcliff's, but in the end it meant that she had to lose him, which had not been her plan at all. It was aggravating and frustrating enough to justify anything she might do and say.

More, when Heathcliff does return, he will have to pay the price for having deserted her, no matter what reasons he might have had, because those reasons will always be of lesser importance than her own reasons. She might recognise his right to have been upset at a decision he didn't like (although he should have; she was doing it for him, after all), but that was no excuse for abandoning her.

Of course I understand that the rationale is selfish and wrong, but I truly thought that Catherine's every action and word was in tune with the selfish, vindictive character the author chose for her. I enjoyed the fact that the author stayed true to the character even if it meant turning it into an unlikeable human being.

But again, once one gets to dislike a character, there's not much one can do about it, is there? : )

[Lone]

Emily Brönte brings in the question of genes and society/moral when she made Heathcliff 'a noble savage', just like Mary Shelley did with Frankenstein's monster.
Does these two characters become violent and abusive due to their genes or due to how the surrounding society treats them?

And perhaps 'Wuthering Heights' has been labelled a 'Love Story' due to the fact that Catherine was able to see Heathcliff's heart underneath the surface? Even though Catherine does what is expected of her by the society and does not marry Heathcliff, he longs for her deeply and ends up dying of grief.

The sense of wanting to belong and the grief of lost love is something we all can relate to and I believe some of the reasons why this novel moves so many people.

[Gina]

Of course there is a danger to putting modern sensibilities onto classic literature, but I'm guessing many or all of us have friends who have experienced those "The-love-of-a good-man/woman(me!)-will-cure-this-awful-person" sort of relationships, or indeed had them ourselves, and it leaves us with a bad taste in our mouths. No matter how attractive the backs of their heads were! LOL! I was glad when Heathcliffe died in the book..there, I've said it! Interesting about the Romantic movement as opposed to romantic characters.

[Gryph]

Penelope wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "I suspect that comparing Edward (50 Shades) to Heathcliff would be like comparing Bush 43 to Abraham Lincoln based on their shared Republican status. -- Which of these two characters..."

Lol Penelope :)

Given that I haven't (read never will) read 50 Shades and know very little about A.L., I decline choosing. However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone else in my comment enjoyed torturing animals at some time in his life .... not saying who. :P

[Voronwer]

Penelope wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "This discussion of Heathcliff as romantic (as opposed to a Romantic character) reminds me of the romance women I know seem to find in the 50 shades male character. They both sound repulsive to me."

See, the difference with me lies that I adore Wuthering Heights, whether or not I want to go out and have drinks with Heathcliff. While 50 shades pretty much repulses me without needing to actually know how repulsive the characters really are. I very much doubt it has any kind of quote that comes near to what Emma posted higher up. And yes, there are so many lines I know by heart from Wuthering Heights which no other book has ever really done to me.

[Michele]

To clear up a niggly misconception: Edward and Bella are characters from Twilight while Christian (Grey) and Anastasia (Steele) are their analogous characters from 50 Shades.

I have not read the books of either series* although I have watched the Twilight films and enjoyed them, but I feel if we are to discuss these books even if it is for the sole purpose of decrying them - it helps to get major characters named correctly at least. :)

(*I read the samples of the 50 Shades for research purposes.)

[Voronwer]

Michele wrote: "To clear up a niggly misconception: Edward and Bella are characters from Twilight while Christian (Grey) and Anastasia (Steele) are their analogous characters from 50 Shades.

I have not read the..."

Oh, I know they're named differently, but since I was 1) too lazy to look up the names, 2) didn't really care since they're a name and replace of a Twilight fic, it was just easier for me to say Bella and Edward. Sorry if that created confusion.

I did read the Twilight books. Out of masochism, really. And because I did like Jacob's character. I'm loathe to compare them to Wuthering Heights, though. Not quite the same league. =o)

[Michele]

Voronwer wrote: "I'm loathe to compare them to Wuthering Heights, though. Not quite the same league. =o) "

Agreed :)

[Lucinda]

Great discussion, everyone.
CCose, today I will look up my library records, see if I can get the name of that version of Wuthering Heights for the introduction.

[L.J.]

In her study of the book, Muriel Spark commented you're either in the Heathcliff camp or the Linton one. If you're in the Linton camp you'll never see the attraction of Heathcliff. Catherine herself describes him to Isabella as 'a fierce, pitiless, wolfish man'. But who wouldn't want to be loved with such force? That's what blinds us to his vices. Emily Bronte makes us fall in love with him. As for mewling, virtuous Edgar Linton, forget it.

[Jeni]

Interesting, L.J.! I was in neither camp. I dislike every character in this book.

There is no "healthy attraction" option for Heathcliff. He's a sociopath. You cannot love someone out of that type of behavior. Heathcliff never loved anyone but himself.

[David]

a: people are afraid to call old books crap, and this surely is crap
b: we're all getting Heathcliff mixed up with Laurence Olivier in the film version, which cuts out the 2nd, drivelish, half of the book

[Emma]

I'm sorry David but I had read the book several times before I saw a film adaption and the only one I've seen is the one with Binoch (and that version has the second part in it). And than your first statement: I love wuthering heights but I think Jane Austens style is very boring (love the stories tough, but I can't finnish her books) So I'm not afraid to say an old book is bad but everybody has it's own tasted.

[Sara]

Jeni wrote: "There is no "healthy attraction" option for Heathcliff. He's a sociopath. You cannot love someone out of that type of behavior."

I completely agree with you, Jenny.

Jeni wrote: "Heathcliff never loved anyone but himself. "

I'd say he did love Catherine, in a fashion, but a possessive type of love. The kind where the loved one is part of the 'me' and therefore shouldn't be contacted by (or wish to have contact with) other people.

Had he not been under such a strong awe of Catherine, he would certainly feel tempted to beat her up regularly so as to teach her to keep her temper in check.

Of course some might argue that's no example of love to speak of.

[Sara]

I was talking to my sister about this, and she said something interesting. She believes that Emily didn't want us to fall in love with either Catherine or Heathcliff (especially not him). If anything, we were to fall for the brute force of their love. Or passion, if you will (thus distinguishing love as a constructive feeling from passion as a destructive feeling).

I agree with her. If there's something I truly love, it's not the characters but the strength of their feelings. I mean, you may fall for the Heathcliff in films, but in the book... Not even Isabella stays under the illusion for long!

[Lucinda]

Welcome, LJ. Your comment is intriguing. For my own part, I think Muriel Spark over simplifies a little myself there. Like Sara's sister,I am not sure that Emily Bronte wished to provoke a response of romantic admiration in women readers at all...

Jeni, I would say I wasn't in any camp either, except in so far as I always tend to think men who abuse women are sick and it detracts from their masculinity.

CCose: I got the library details. The book that had the introduction which speaks about non possessive Shelleyian love and Catherine is the Oxford World Classics edition, 1998, ISBN 0192833545 Publisher OUP. That's me done with being efficient for the next year...

[Voronwer]

Sara wrote: "I was talking to my sister about this, and she said something interesting. She believes that Emily didn't want us to fall in love with either Catherine or Heathcliff (especially not him). If anythi..."

Your sister is on to something there. In a way, it's even present in the way the story is told. Brontë could have warmed the reader more to Heathcliff by starting the story from his pov, or at least from the start of his story.

Instead, we begin the story almost near its end. We're not introduced to the uncertain gypsy boy, but to the bitter and unkind man. As a reader, you are made to understand why he is who he is, why he has turned so bitter and spiteful. And yet, we're never seeing Heathcliff's true self. We always see him through someone else and aside from Catherine, none of them really cares for him anyway. I think that says a lot as well.

And on a personal note, I agree that it the strength of his love that does warm me up to the character. It's probably the one redeeming quality he has left by the end of his of life.

(Man, I need to be less wordy.)

[Gryph]

Michele wrote: "To clear up a niggly misconception: Edward and Bella are characters from Twilight while Christian (Grey) and Anastasia (Steele) are their analogous characters from 50 Shades.

I have not read the..."

Thank you for this correction Michele. I admit to not properly researching my previous responses as I have learned all I wish to about 50 Shades and assumed that it's characters shared names from Twilight.

[Gryph]

Lucinda wrote: "Great discussion, everyone.
CCose, today I will look up my library records, see if I can get the name of that version of Wuthering Heights for the introduction."

Thx Lucinda, I will do the same via an edition google search. The intro / analysis must be immortalized somewhere on the Interwebs (tm) ... lol :)

[Gryph]

Lucinda wrote: "CCose: I got the library details. The book that had the introduction which speaks about non possessive Shelleyian love and Catherine is the Oxford World Classics edition, 1998, ISBN 0192833545 Publisher OUP. That's me done with being efficient for the next year... ..."

Thx again Lucinda. I've popped the ISBN you provided into google and am slogging through pages of "store" entries in the hopes that I can find the actual text of Dr. Stoneman's analysis .... lol :)

[Maxine]

David wrote: "a: people are afraid to call old books crap, and this surely is crap
b: we're all getting Heathcliff mixed up with Laurence Olivier in the film version, which cuts out the 2nd, drivelish, half of t..."

Actually, many people call old books 'crap' - you just did. In fact, pretty much every classic has been trashed on Goodreads by at least one person. However, many of us differentiate between our personal feelings and objectivity. For me, there is a huge disconnect between "I don't like" and "it's crap". I am not a big fan of Wuthering Heights but I don't feel qualified to comment on its objective value as literature other than to say that there is a reason why it has survived for more than a century when others from the same time have entered the dust bin of history. Not only survived but is still being discussed in English Lit classes in just about every university from here to Beijing as well as on threads like this one. As to the movie, I couldn't say because I have never watched it.

[Gryph]

David wrote: "a: people are afraid to call old books crap, and this surely is crap
b: we're all getting Heathcliff mixed up with Laurence Olivier in the film version, which cuts out the 2nd, drivelish, half of t..."

Greetings David,

WRT a) people certainly do refer to "old books" as crap, although they tend to be younger ... and I accept that you found it to be "crap".

WRT b) I'm certainly not confusing the two as one was a novel and the other was a film. Last I checked, we were discussing Heathcliff within the novel. Evidence from this thread shows that the vast majority are also not confusing the two.