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).

[[deleted user]]

BROOKE , you are incorrect. Cathy was 17 years old when she married Edgar, and 18yrs old when she died in 1784 (chapter 16).

[Gryph]

C-Cose wrote: "But, I did take the drastic step of sending an email to the Director of the "Centre for Victorian Studies" at the University of Hull (UK), in the hopes that she may be able to help me track down an online version of the preface by Dr. Stoneman.

I'll update on my progress :) "

UPDATE: I just received an email from the new Director at the Centre for Victorian Studies at Univeristy of Hull (UK) where Dr. Stoneman is a contributor. You wouldn't believe how long it took to track down some way to contact her .... lol.

Anywho, my request has been forwarded to Dr. Stoneman and I hope to receive some further info soon :)

[Lucinda]

CCose, You are one determined researcher! Well done!

[Gryph]

Lucinda wrote: "CCose, You are one determined researcher! Well done!"

Greetings Lucinda :)

SUCCESS!!!! I just opened an email from Dr. Stoneman hereself :)

The full text of her argument in the preface edition is included in an article for "Bronte Studies", entitled Addresses from the land of the dead: Emily Bronte and Shelley (Vol. 31, Part 2 (July 2006), pp. 121-131.

Apparently she has retired from active contribution to the Centre for Victorian Studies @ University of Hull (UK). She actually apologized for the effort I took to "track [her] down" :) What a dear Lady!!!!

Anywho ... I'm off to our local university tomorrow to see if I can track down the journal and make a copy of the article to devour :)

[Lucinda]

Manjishtha wrote: "First of, I think this is a great discussion.

Now, as for liking and even loving Heathcliff, I believe, if she could, Ms. Bronte would have created a lovable Frankenstein or a King Kong. Clearly ..."

Welcome, Manjistha, I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion. As I am sure you know from my contributions, your take on the novel and women's reasons for idealising Heathcliff differ radically from mine, I consider his behaviour - particularly towards women - disgusting and his character weak in that he based his life about another person (a mistake more commonly made by women in our society), but your comments are intriguing.

Melissa, Oops, sorry, I forgot to thank you for liking my review and your message and welcome all new contributors,I've been ill in bed, couldn't contribute for a couple of days.

[Lucinda]

Thanks for fascinating contributions! I think I would dispute that the desire of woman to 'fix' a damaged and destructive man is innate, seeing it rather as an aspect of patriarchal culture, of masochism, and different from the nurturing urge towards infants. For sure, the 'anti hero' the rascal, is an appealing character, but not the sort who bullies woman and children. There's been a lot of debate on here about that, as you can see, and a lot of people on here would go along with your analysis.

[Bea]

I don't think that Heathcliff was meant to be an admirable character, a "hero" in the sense that we think of heroes now, as "good guys". I think that the ministers' daughters amused themselves by creating attractive bad guys, although Emily was a lot better at that than was Charlotte, whose Rochester is a good deal less stirring.

[Adalie]

Personally, I find Heathcliff so attractive because of his love for Catherine. Don't get me wrong, they are both mean-spirited, stupid people. But their love for each other is their one redeeming quality and that makes it very powerful. Do you think if things had turned out differently and Heathcliff wasn't mistreated after Mr. Earnshaw's death and Catherine had ended up marrying him, that he would have turned out much differently? I believe that and so I love this character because I pity him.

P.S. Heathcliff and Catherine's relationship was NOT quasi incestuous. They weren't related at all obviously. Just because they grew up in the same household from a young age does not mean they would automatically view each other as brother and sister.

[Melissa]

Maybe Emilys writing was a way of expressing her dissatisfaction with her generation (or the generations before her). I've said before Hareton is one of the only redeeming characters and he would actually be the 'next' generation of the book.

The book could be almost a case study in a few different situations:
Men having the final say in all matters
Women not being raised to have any thoughts beyond the home (marrage, children, etc)
Letting your emotions control your actions

I could go on.

Also being a ministers daughter she probably saw people coming into church weekly and touting Gods word while going home and committing all kinds of sin. That's probably why we get characters like Joseph, easily one of the most unlikeable characters in the book. He spends 90% of his time talking about the bible and how everyone is sinning, and the other 10% ignoring all the stuff going on around him. Zillah is the same way, except she outright says she won't interfere with anything that happens because it isn't her business.

These days we can agree that not doing something is almost as bad as doing it yourself, but when the book was written that was how most people dealt with uncomfortable situations. Men owned everything and as such could pretty much do as they pleased as long as it didn't physically interfere with another mans business/property etc., especially if they had more money than everyone around them.
Really the whole book is like that, things that shock and appall our 21st century sensibilities was most likely, very commonplace when the book was written. Even when people say that Cathy and Heathcliff had a semi-incestuous relationship makes me laugh, besides the obvious fact they weren't related, Heathcliff was seen for the most part as a servant. After Mr. Earnshaw died he was relegated to chores and living off of Hindleys 'charity'. Sure he and Cathy were friends, but in all reality she could have never married him if she wanted to, Hindley would have never allowed her to marry a poor servant.

The most shocking aspect of the book when it was written was most likely that Isabella left her husband. But even she died and that could even be a statement on Isabella not respecting the sanctity of marriage.

[[deleted user]]

Maybe this is just me, but I always thought of his cruelty in the last half of the book as like a revenge on the world thing. Sure, he wasn't exactly a perfect person to begin with but he was also a kid.
Anyway, the reason I think of it as revenge is he lost Catherine. Twice. When Heathcliff comes back into the story the second time after Catherine has married Linton, he has grown into a man more cruel than he ever was as a kid. But the reason that he left was because he overheard Catherine's conversation with Nelly. He was hurt, he felt as though the woman he loved would never be with him because he was not well off. They say that Hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned? But what about a man scorned? Just good for thought.
Continuing on the topic at hand, Heathcliff gets significantly worse after Catherine dies. This is the second time he loses her, and this time for good. That is my theory on why he is so awful at the end of the book. After she dies he has no good left until just before he himself dies. And I think that the reason he is more peaceful before he dies is because his death reunites him with his beloved.
I think what made Heathcliff such a bad person was his love for Catherine, and something about that is incredibly romantic.


Or maybe I'm completely wrong and Ms. Bronte just liked a bad boy.

[Jeni]

I would be interested to know what Ms. Bronte was thinking when she wrote Heathcliff. I would laugh if it was "I'm going to write the most disgusting human male figure I can to be the 'bad guy' and see if people hate him as much as I do!!" and then being shocked he's such a love muffin.

I have no desire to fix anyone. Must be my 20th century upbringing ;)

[Adalie]

Melissa wrote: "Maybe Emilys writing was a way of expressing her dissatisfaction with her generation (or the generations before her). I've said before Hareton is one of the only redeeming characters and he would a..."

You don't think Cathy could have married Heathcliff? Granted, she says herself that he is below her but isn't that just her own vanity? She cares what other people think of her and so she decides she can't marry Heathcliff. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Catherine's father never viewed Heathcliff as a servant.

[Lucinda]

Welcome, new people, my goodness, I've got something going in this discussion! I never expected to have so many replies.
Well, I was partly joking when I said 'quasi incestuous', I do love a laugh, one of the reasons I have to find the deadly solemn tone of the book over the top. But I said 'quasi'.
Hard to say if they were brought up as brother and sister; they shared that bed that Lockwood sleeps in,and I wouldn't have thought that Cathy would be allowed to share a bed with someone who wasn't seen as a sort of 'quasi' (dare I say it? if unrelated) brother. In those days, bed sharing was common, but not across classes except very young children and their nurses.
It seems to me to be a form of quasi incest when people who are brought up as step or adopted brother and sister develop sexual feelings for each other, even if they aren't related, though I know the obvious reasons for the ban on close relatives having sexual relations don't exsit. Not everyone agrees. I think a crtiic found evidence (I've forgotten which, sorry) that Emily Bronte's original intention was to have Heathcliff as a half brother, real incest. It would have been fascinating if she'd written it like that, but too much for Victorian sensiblities...
CCose: You trackesd it down! Wowzers! Patsy Stoneman sounds lovely (it is Patsy Stoneman, isn't it?) I love her article on 'Sylvia's Lovers', but that's irrevlevant here.

[Adalie]

Lucinda wrote: "Welcome, new people, my goodness, I've got something going in this discussion! I never expected to have so many replies.
Well, I was joking when I said 'quasi incestuous', I do love a laugh, one of..."

Do you have any step siblings Lucinda? I don't see why you would find that distasteful. People fall in love, so what if they were raised together or if their parents are married, as long as they themselves are not related?

[Kate]

Emma wrote: "But in everyday life women fall in love - unfortunatly - with ***holes who beat them or do disgusting things like killing animals or even people and still forgive them en keep loving them. My count..."

I cant say I found the tyrant, Heathcliffe attractive, but I agree with you whole heartedly on every other point! Well done!

[Roselin]

I blame everything on cathy. Blame cathy for heathcliff distructive dehavior.

[Lucinda]

Adalie, It is a matter of opinion, I don't mind your disagreeing with me in the slightest. That is what is so good about Goodreads, people have fascinating debates, and always remain civil, unlike other sites where abuse is rife.
I must click that link about Heathcliff as dictator someone posted further back.

[Adalie]

Lucinda wrote: "Adalie, It is a matter of opinion, I don't mind your disagreeing with me in the slightest. That is what is so good about Goodreads, people have fascinating debates, and always remain civil, unlike ..."

Lucinda, I hope you don't think I was being disrespectful in my last comment. I really am interested in your viewpoint on this matter because that thought had never occurred to me. May I ask, have you read Mansfield Park wherein the hero and heroine are actually cousins? Do you find that distasteful as well?

[Lucinda]

Not at all, Adalie, if I had a thin skin I wouldn't have published an ebook lol.
I take your point. It's interesting, as in old law cousins were forbidden to marry and people even less closely related were too. I don't find cousins too close personally, which is interesting, as I know some do think that they are too close genetically, so I am well aware that there is a social aspect to my feelings.
As I said above, how interesting if that critic I saw mentioned somewhere was right and Emily Bronte had planned a real incestuous relationship with
H and C as half brother and sister.
I think as I said above, if only EB had made H repent of his cruelties, then it would be a more satisfactory novel, ending on a note of reconciliation and forgiveness. Probably then, too, I'd be a lot less hard on H.
Yes, I read Mansfield Park. I didn't find the relationshp between F and E distasteful, but I did find it unromantic, and I wished she'd married the rascally Henry Crawford instread, just as JA's sister wanted.

[Anna]

I'm beginning to think you like rogues Lucinda...they would never do for a JA heroine!

[Melissa]

I'm enjoying this discussion too, enough that it made me start reading a bit earlier than usual. (I generally wait until December) Interesting note, if you put a book into your currently reading list it takes the discussion away so you can't view it.

Adalie wrote: "You don't think Cathy could have married Heathcliff? Granted, she says herself that he is below her but isn't that just her own vanity? She cares what other people think of her and so she decides she can't marry Heathcliff. Correct me .."

I think had she not found Edgar she may have wanted to, but Hindley is who wouldn't have allowed it. He is the one who turned Heathcliff into little more than a servant in the household. He wouldn't let him get taught by Cathys teacher and also made him work out in the fields with the horses.

But then again, I think Cathy was just as emotionally stunted as Heathcliff and at 16 probably would have never thought of marriage had Edgar not brought it up.

Roselin wrote: "I blame everything on cathy. Blame cathy for heathcliff distructive dehavior."

I tend to agree, Cathy kept saying the Heathcliff would never do anything to hurt her because he loved her too much. But she also kept putting him in situations with her husband and just expected him to be totally happy for her. She really is just a selfish girl. It's the kind of thing you where you say maybe she'll grow out of it, but unfortunately for her she worked herself into such a fit over her Edgar and Heathcliff not being best friends because she wanted them to, she starved herself until she went crazy and died.

But that also kind of goes to my point about her naivety, obviously no one ever explained to her what can happen during a pregnancy and she never even knew she was pregnant. (Or if she did know about the baby, Nelly made it seem like she didn't)

She always reminds me of that kid on the playground that made everyone to play their game but if you didn't want to they would just leave and take their toys with them.

[Briseis]

i confess i was not impressed by wuthering heights when i read it,and indeed it was an unconventional story,at least for that time.
but i honestly believe that the term romantic applies to the character-and the novel-merely from a literary point of view.
i mean as a literary current,romantics appeared as reaction to classic writings-be they prose or poetry-and explored with thought and language a whole universe.they approached love,passion,nature,obsession,the grotesque,(sexual)magnetism,social dramas,vices,magic,occult,vengeance and retribution,fantastic realms and ideas,concepts,feelings,principles or lack of, flawed human beings,and so on,from a very visceral and more realistic point of view than previous western creations.
the novel explores many of those themes,and very well.i don't find it romantic from a modern point of view,but i like how consistent the characters are-even in their flawness.it is darker than usual for a female writer but realistic from the point of view that love has many facets,and the addictive kind is far from redeeming anyone,on the contrary leads to deeper immersion in misery and obsession.
it also touches on other subjects as superficiality in midlle-upper classes,gambling,and the fact that an appearance of civilisation is far from taming a human beast.it also puts as main characters a lot-less-than-perfect human beings who would have been a social taboo in conversation or otherwise,without them being nonexistent though.
i think they call it co-dependency now,and is a very fragmented,twisted&tortured kind of love those two were capable of-as much as their egoes allowed them,which is unfortunate since there was some spark and maybe potential of real love burried under various traumas,mistakes and shortcommings.
i like her courage of writing these non-ideal hero&heroine,in very bold ideas and making them such strong characters(not positive).their personalities are like having two freight-trains going full speed and crashing and burning.it would take miracles to stop them in their mistaken tracks,or change their course.apparently she didn't write that saving grace for either one.

[Gryph]

Lucinda wrote: "CCose: You trackesd it down! Wowzers! Patsy Stoneman sounds lovely (it is Patsy Stoneman, isn't it?) I love her article on 'Sylvia's Lovers', but that's irrevlevant here."

Greetings Lucinda :)

I did indeed!!! Patsy Stoneman seems a lovely Lady ... I can't help picturing her as an English Jessica Fletcher now ... lol.

I'm off to our local university tomorrow to print of a copy of the journal article that she directed me to.

On a side note ... apparently the level of "research" that I did in tracking down this article isn't very common any more. Everyone that I've emailed or spoken to has commented on my tenacity .... lol. If this isn't normal, what are they teaching kids these days?!?!? LOL

[Gryph]

Adalie wrote: "Do you have any step siblings Lucinda? I don't see why you would find that distasteful. People fall in love, so what if they were raised together or if their parents are married, as long as they themselves are not related?"

Greetings Adalie,

To be fair, Lucinda did say "quasi-incestuous". Also, if two persons are raised as brother and sister in the same household, step or completely non-related, any romantic love developing between them could be seen as "unnatural" (rightly or not) by the wider society--at least in the West.

It certainly adds another layer to the complex relationship between Catherine and Heathcliff.

[Raven]

Yes! I too have been much puzzled by this but never expressed it so articulately as you have.

I had read Jane Eyre for a course and (to my surprise) had loved it. The professor taught the book with much enthusiasm but often mentioned Wuthering Heights as even better, greatest love story and all that.

I wish I had read it when I was still at school there because I would really like to have him explain a thing or two about his assesment. I was bitterly disapointed by this book. Perhaps I am reading it on the wrong level or something but I find Heathcliff repulsive.

[Lucinda]

Welcome more new people.
*CCose* I want to write to Patsy Stoneman myself, congratuating her on her essay on 'Sylvia's Lovers', not as if she'll hold her breath over what I think. Thanks for pointing out that I did indeed say 'quasi' incestuous. I don't think old Earnshaw would have permitted Heathcliff to share a bed with Cathy as s child unless they were being raised as virtually brother and sister. Now I'm the one whose racking my brains, trying to remember who the critic was who suggested that Bronte's original intention was - horrifically, to Victorian sensibilties and as someone said, even to ours - a love affair between half brother and sister...
*Anna* Lol, I do find rascals entertaining, I don't want to do a shameless bit of self advertising here, but that is why my ebook is about a 'Scoundrel'!
*Adalie* Fanny and Edmund hadn't been brought up as brother and sister, of course, as she was a poor relative and not a 'real' part of the family,though they were brought up in the same household and were cousins.
It's interesting that my own feelings about the end of the novel - that if only Heathcliff had been sorry and tormented by guilt a bit, then I would have disliked him a good deal less, aren't that common, it seems.
Nelly, whom a lot of critics have attacked mercilessly (perhaps not thinking that a servant in those days wasn't in a position to be totally morally scrupulous, honest about her own actions, etc) shows a genuine Christian compassion for Heathcliff quite often.
It do find Charlotte Bronte's comments, too, which crtiics again dismiss I think too easily, that the only two signs of human feeling in Heathcliff are his remaining fondness for Nelly after she had nursed him through measles as a child, 'I like you, worthy Mrs Dean, but I don't like your spying' and his recognition of Hareton's worth, and his occasional acts of kindness to him 'What's to do, lad?' when he rushes out after Cathy as snubbed him.
I have to agree with her (and I don't like her views quite often on moral issues) that Heathcliff's passion for Catherine seems more like an obsession, also in its old sense as of a haunting, than love.
I have said above, though he believes they will be reuinted in death, he isn't worried about what she will make of his treatment of her relatives (in life, Nelly comments that he was 'cowed by her scolding' about this). This is an odd contradiction.

[[deleted user]]

Alexus wrote: "Maybe this is just me, but I always thought of his cruelty in the last half of the book as like a revenge on the world thing. Sure, he wasn't exactly a perfect person to begin with but he was also ..."
This was exactly how I interpreted his character.

[Hegemb]

I agree, Heathcliff is not a nice man. I think he is seen as the noble savage due to his intense (albeit somewhat unhealthy) love for Catherine. Here's a quote:

“If he loved you with all the power of his soul for a whole lifetime, he couldn’t love you as much as I do in a single day.”

I named my daughter Emily, that's how much I like the book :-)

[Melissa]

I've actually had a thought as I've been rereading, Why does Cathy's ghost appear to Lockwood at the beginning of the story? Is it a way to get her story known to more people or was he really just hallucinating? Or maybe it's because he is how Cathy saw Heathcliff. She truly, until her death, didn't see him for what he really was and it literally destroyed her to see his true nature and how obsessed he really was. Lockwood himself even says the reason he came to TG was because he was in love with a girl and the moment she began to be interested in him he pushed her away.

[Lucinda]

Welcome, new people. Melissa, the supernatural aspect has always puzzled me, too. I suppose Emily Bronte kept it deliberately vague, and the reader could come to her or his own conclusions about whether there really is a ghost.
But if there is - why hasn't Cathy been able to get through to Heathcliff? Is it a case of 'the veil' that separates reality from the occult realm, or is it, as I think Patsy Stoneman mentioned in that preface CCose wanted, a sign that Heathcliff remains cut off from what Cathy wants, both he and Edgar, in their own different ways?

[Danielle]

I think people classify this as a romantic novel because it was written by a woman. It's not about romance at all but about class racism and sexism. I disagree that Healthcliff is always an evil person, remember when he is
first introduced into the story he is spat on by Catherine and Hindley because his rescue resulted in their gifts being broken. You would think they would show him mercy considering they are spoilt rich children and heathcliff is poor and homeless. Heathcliff growing up in a white family is constantly reminded that he would never live up to the family title because he is a dark 'gipsy.' He is treated more like a servant than a son and isn't educated to the level of Catherine and Hindley. And to add insult to injury he can not be with his true love because he has been kept in a low class and even being adopted into a white family hasn't improved his status. The reason why Catherine didn't married him is because they would of been poor and had children in poverty. Healthcliff couldn't provide for Catherine!!! Plus Catherine said she would of used the money she gained through marriage to help Healthcliff out of poverty.

However by following her head she betrayed her heart which I think resulted in her being a controlling bitch.

Now I don't know about you but I wouldn't be a very nice person if that happened to me. That's where the sympathy comes into play though I wouldn't describe it as romantic as the abused become the abuser.

Now, although Healthcliff suffers from racial and class oppression he is still a man and uses his male privilege to abuse Isabella and because she is his wife there is little anyone can do to save her. Even Healthcliff points out that no matter what acts of cruelty he committed Isabella didn't try to leave and still married him. I think Bronte was writting about the female condition.
It is expected of us to endure and stay silent and forgive.

Now you guys hate Healthcliff but there is a little Healthcliff in everyone even in the other characters of the novel. For example Healthcliff's son is happy when Catherine number2 gets beaten because for once the abuse isn't directed at him. And several times Catherine mocks earnshaw for being illiterate especially when she is captured by Heathcliff because it makes her feel powerful while living under tyrannical rule.

In short I believe that the main message of the novel is that victims of abuse and oppression will try and gain power wherever they can even if that means losing their happiness integrity and turning on each other. Abuse creates a vicious circle. Though in this case love MAY break the circle as what happened between Catherine number2 and earnshaw because fortunately their tyrant died just in time.

[Melissa]

Danielle wrote: "I think people classify this as a romantic novel because it was written by a woman. It's not about romance at all but about class racism and sexism. I disagree that Healthcliff is always an evil pe..."

Agreed.

[Gryph]

Danielle wrote: "Now you guys hate Healthcliff but there is a little Healthcliff in everyone even in the other characters of the novel."

Greetings Danielle,

I can't speak for the other posters, but I haven't ever said that I "hate Heathcliff". The conversation, as I understand it, has been focusing on how Heathcliff can have such unfavorable qualities yet be considered a romantic hero by many, as evidenced in some of the comments in this discussion.

I agree that the novel illustrates many kinds of discrimination that are contemporary to the time of writing and valid for today. But, given that, I still wonder why (primarily) young women are drawn in by the "bad boy" qualities that Heathcliff exhibits.

It's not just a mental exercise for me either. I have seen far too many women, and men, young and not so young, allow themselves to believe that they can "correct" or "change" the bad boy in their life. Outside of the fact that such change must be wanted by the person themself, I have yet to see a successful conclusion to this "change" imposed by someone else. Invariably, these men and women that I know have ended the relationship more harmed and confused then they were when it began.

This worries me.

When I've asked them what led them to believe that they could change their partner, they almost always answer that this man / boy was their "Heathcliff" ... not the Beast from Beauty and the Beast in its various incarnations, not Edward from Twilight (although this would nauseate me), nor any of Shakespeare's romantic (anti)heroes. It's always this "Heathcliff" that has become a part of our cultural vocabulary as an ideal "bad boy".

I worry because I feel that romantic hero(ine) and the genre of Romantic Novel have become interchangeable. I worry because a character's traits are confused with a literary style / movement. I worry because not seeing someone's faults as they are, in real life, and "romantacizing" them can lead to great heart-break.

I worry because as you say, "the main message of the novel is that victims of abuse and oppression will try and gain power wherever they can even if that means losing their happiness integrity and turning on each other....", and I feel that many people forget this when they are trying to change their own personal "Heathcliff".

I pity Heathcliff, my heart aches for the horrid treatment that he received as a child, I applaud his transformation into a self-sufficient man that was in control of his own destiny ... but ... I abhor the man that he became according to the design of Emily Brontë. As an adult, he chose revenge over forgiveness--not to be confused with forgetting his upbringing. He chose to punish not only those that had treated him horridly, but also the next generation. He chose to become a "Hindley" and continue the cycle of abuse that he had experienced.

I do not hate him. But, I do want to sit him down and show him how things could have been much different had he only made better, healthier, life-affirming choices rather than the ones that he did.

[Lucinda]

Melissa wrote: "Danielle wrote: "I think people classify this as a romantic novel because it was written by a woman. It's not about romance at all but about class racism and sexism. I disagree that Healthcliff is ..."

Fascinating comments, Danielle and everyone. I so agree about the sexism and the worrying implications of young women romanticising the 'damaged' man and trying to fix him.

I don't hate Heathcliff either at all. As Graham Greene said, 'Hatred is a failure of imagination'. I feel sorry for him and hate his actions. Nelly is actaully far more compassionate to him than is sometimes conceeded.

[Gryph]

Lucinda wrote: "I don't hate Heathcliff either at all. As Graham Greene said, 'Hatred is a failure of imagination'. I feel sorry for him and hate his actions. Nelly is actaully far more compassionate to him than is sometimes conceeded."

Agreed Lucinda :)

Also, I've been attacked, that's right ... "attacked" by this horrid, nose-and-sinus-filling, head-busting, stomach-churning flu / cold thing that masquerades as a "24 hour" cousin *grrrrr*. As a result, I haven't made it to the university library yet to pick up the Stoneman article that I took so long to hunt down .... LOL.

I will post some reactions to it when I get back "to form" :) Perhaps I'll post it as a new discussion topic to keep it discrete from this more general one ...

[Jettcatt]

"Poor Heathcliffe" is what I have always said. I don't love him as a romantic character but feel for him. Catherine is the real villian here, she is the one that put the hate in motion, for every action there is a reaction. She let her love for money and status overide her love for Heathcliffe. She who knew heathcliffe so well should have known what denying him would have done to him. This is not a love story although some of the classic quotes from the book are a little swoon worthy this is a warning about choices and how the choices you make in this life time may just effect the next generations to come.

[Danielle]

When I said that you guys hate heathcliff it was aimed at the comments that said Halthcliff was an arsehole through out the entire novel, I should of said some of you hate Heathcliff. I don't actually think its wrong to hate Heathcliff as he becomes the enemy just saying that under certain circumstances anyone can become a little Heathcliff as Bronte showed through the other characters, we become what we hate, which is why I never found the novel disappointing like other people did who expected Heathcliff to be a romantic hero.

Obviously these people who say their partner is their Heathcliff clearly didn't comprehend Bronte's message through Isabella who ended up escaping Heathcliff for fear he would kill her and dying young and then their son being abused by him and left to die as well. Maybe they should re read that part. I think because of how men are represented in other novels or films as magically changing by a lovers touch they seem to think Bronte meant the same thing with Heathcliff?

[Gryph]

Danielle wrote: "When I said that you guys hate heathcliff it was aimed at the comments that said Halthcliff was an arsehole through out the entire novel, I should of said some of you hate Heathcliff. I don't actua..."

Thanks for clarifying Danielle :)

Sadly, I think that a large part of the dilemma of the "romantic Heathcliff" stems from the less-than-accurate movie portrayals and references made to this book in other movies. They tend to gloss over the "nasty" bits ... I don't know whether it's censorship while writing the screenplay or laziness in vision on the part of the writers / producers. It would be nice to see a more realistic version of this book on the screen though.

[Lucinda]

Just dashing on to say, CCOse, sorry about illness.
That discussion about the implications of Professor Stoneman's article sounds like it will be really intriguing, though I hope you post a bit on here about it! I think you may be right about those films, I can't claim to have seen a modern one, the only one I saw was such a silly version that I turned off halfway through.
Danielle and everyone, fascinating comments, I wish there were more hours in the day so I could expand more on what I believe on all this!

I've amended my comment because as I wrote it originally, it does give the impression that I don't distinguish betweent the character and his horrible deeds, and that isn't what I meant. We obviously should extend to him the compassion he is incapable of extending to anyone else.

[Melissa]

I think I really missed the boat on Heathcliff being any kind of romantic anything, but I did first read WH in the 5th grade so most, if not all, of the subtext was kind of beyond me. In the 16 years and almost as many readings, I've tried to figure out what it is about these characters that keeps me coming back. I like to have my characters get either their just rewards or their comeuppance and after all the horrible things Heathcliff does he dies without the one thing he truly wanted and that's about as close to comeuppance as you can get.
But like I've said before, for me, the book is about obsession and not love.

I also don't think that you can truly Hate Heathcliff and have read the book more than once. If you really did hate him you'd never read it again.

Jettcatt also made a good point about some of the quotes that get pulled from the book that make it seem so romantic. One of the editions I have has this on the back
"I am Heathcliff! He's always in my mind...as my own being. So don't talk of our seperation again..." - Catherine

At first glance it seems so full of love and passion, but what it doesn't show is shat she was in the middle of telling Nelly she'd couldn't marry Heathcliff because they'd both be paupers and had just agreed to marry Edgar. Obviously there is more going on, but there always is.

I always forget where I'm going with these things, but there it is.

[Bogdan]

I think you are misinterpreting the word "romantic" and the concept of a "romantic hero". A "Romantic hero" refers to that type of character that was preferred by the romantic writers. Romanticism was a literary genre and romantic writers exploited a lot with grotesque (Quasimodo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame) and diabolical characters like Heathcliff. So it is perfectly correct to say that Heathcliff is a romantic hero, because romanticism as a literary genre, wasn't only about love.

[Lucinda]

I know what you mean, Bogdon, about the Romantics and their different meaning of the word 'romantic' to that current today, which could include monstrosities,lol. In this discussion, I'm tending to use it in the modern sense generally, despite referring to 'A Bronic Anti Hero' ion the question. I think a lot of readers on here would argue that Heathcliff is romantic in the modern sense. I don't think so myself, but it's a matter of opinion...

[Sharon]

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..."
I see you've had scads of responses---read through many of them before I decided to post and didn't see my explanation, although perhaps I missed it.

There are two kinds of romantic heros, which you may well already know. The first is our modern definition of romantic--pertaining to romance, the feelings of love, fanciful,fanciful, idealistic, etc. At first glance, Heathcliff doesn't seem to fit our modern definition, but...I am actually geeky enough (ok, I confess, I'm an English teacher) to have looked up the meaning of the word romantic and he does fit some of its definitions: impractical, obsessed with one's beloved, idealization of one's beloved. So, it's a stretch, but one could make the argument.

More importantly, Heathcliff is most assuredly a Romantic hero. That one little capitalization makes a huge difference. The Romantic period of literature in both the England and the US is full of similar characters. They share the characteristics of the Romantic period itself--a fascination with nature and the supernatural, a yearning for wildness and disorder rather than the opposite, experimentation with different methods to transcend this life and connect with the truly super-natural. Totally unconcerned with goodness of character or goodness of anything else for that matter because the supernatural in question here really has nothing to do with anything Judeo-Christian. Byron (you mentioned him) is the prototype of the English Romantic hero who is, as you alluded to, actually an anti-hero and Heathcliff certainly fits all of the above. So when you hear English teachers such as myself refer to Heathcliff as such, it's really because of his much closer resemblance to the Romantic hero than the romantic hero. :) Ta.

[Lucinda]

Excellent analysis, Sharon. ...I believe there is some evidence that Emily Bronte was influence by Byron, and given his famous (infamous?) relationship with his half sister, that might account for the evidence some critic commented on that she had originally intended Heathcliff and Catherine to be half siblings, too...

[Briseis]

@Aideen:"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."
you cannot compare youreself,a reader seeing from the viewpoint of the autoress with a fictional character that was written to have spent years with the other character.
if you would actually place yourself in her shoes i'm sure you would find at least something to love...after years and years.besides children see things differently than adults and form deeper attachements.like romeo and juliet...

[Briseis]

Voronwer wrote: "Honestly, I might think Heathcliff and Catherine are more healthy than Edward and Bella. =oP "
hahahaaa.like that one...

[Briseis]

Lucinda wrote: "Hello, Hermione, welcome (are you called after 'The Winter's Tale?)
I cannot in any way see the 'love' or obsession, or whatever it is, between Catherine and Heathcliff and Caherine as romantic; t..."
i think there is no incest hint involved.sorry, but they were not related in any way, in an age where relatives still married to further social or economical family agendas.
i don't think it would be an issue even today.

[Briseis]

Lucinda wrote: "He's madly jealous, she isn't. She revels in Edgar's physical attractions in her confession to Nelly, and after his return, she tells Heathcliff flatly she wants to make lots of heirs with Edgar. This remark doesn't seem to be made in an attempt to make his jealousy worse, and she even seems puzzled by it."

is it possible that bronte had knowledge of such feelings or reactions from men in her time and society, and so was able to depict in a visual way heathcliff's reaction,but not having a personal experience from the point of view of the woman,was incapable to inform her work and so cathy's character is sketchier from this aspect?perhaps she merely states what she thinks she would say/feel in cathy's place and what would attract her/appeal to her in a marriage?
after all,generally women devoted to being mothers seem to have a cheerier and more affectionate disposition,and decidedly less selfish.her treatment of the hosehold,linton and even heathcliff is more of a diva.more of that passionate artistic disposition opened to highs and lows of emotion and a bit theatrical.
just a thought

[Briseis]

Lucinda wrote: "But doesn't repugnance at his treatment of the pregnant Isabella, his hitting Catherine about the head for trying to retain her mother's picture..."
lots of replies to posted comments but i'm catching up.sorry
it might not be that at the time the book was written it was as grisly and violent as it seems now to us.isn't that the time when husbands were legally allowed to hit their wives with a stick provided it wasn't thicker than their thumb?
and i do know that the church stated for so long that animals have no soul.there was an issue with animal cruelty in spain some years ago related to that.
i know i'm drifting off the subject but i'm just trying to establish bronte's frame of mind.which is important to the meaning of the book.the enigma we're discussing :P

[Briseis]

Victoria wrote: "In many ways I think love is too abstract to dispute. Mixing up the kind of love you feel is right or you would like to receive doesn't change the word. Love comes in many forms.
I think he was selfish in his love, passionate to a fault, and reckless. He was abusive and malicious plotting his own downfall by plotting that of others.
Maybe it is because I love any character who confuses me. I think i love passion. Linton was so wholely unapealing because he had no passion. Sometimes he exhibited a stiff quiet love but Heathcliffs was unbridled. "
this is going to be very hard to put into words.so bear with me.
love is not hunger that longs to consume the other one, or consumes everything around it.it is food that nourishes.a feast you offer to the one you love,with everything they need, AND-and this is very important- that you share with them and nourish yourself.
passion is wonderful,but it is not love, and not MORE than love.it is the fuel to love.the instrument of love's greatest acts.passion fuels you to go 1000miles for the one you love.but love is the reason!
the hunger with no end that consumes, and consumes, and is never sated is the need for love.we all terribly need to be loved and feel love.and our ignorance makes us incapable of loving ourselves just as we are, and realising that we're not beggars that need to beg for love.when you don't feel that love inside, and you get a meal from someone,it is a cosmic event for you.and after that, of course, you want more.and the more they give you, the more you start to believe that food and the person are one.and if that person went away,or no longer fed you,you would have no more food.and that's when you start worrying for your safety.and that's when attachements form.and then, follow the power games to make the other one need you, at least as much as you need them, to insure as much as humanly possible that they won't leave and take it away.but the thing is, that when you start doing that, you start destroying love.first on your part,because need supercedes it.you become greedy and selfish, and so give less and less.you fuel the other one's fears that they will run out of food.and they give less and less.it's a vicious circle.untill nothing is left of love.or almost nothing.and is just a dark obsession.
applied to the book,heathcliff and cathy's need for love, their hunger consumed them.heathcliff's consumed everything around him.their love-beginning of-had no chance against that.all that remained was an overwhelming need that was never filled, and that only the other one could stop.it is different in cathy, because she doesn't cling only to heathcliff.she needs other people also.linton.child.etc.but heathcliff was not the kind to form many attachements.so for him, cathy is the only one.he lives in a constant state of lack,of fear for his basic need(love0.and that makes him act all the time in run-or-fight mode.survival mode.no one's need or suffering is greater than his.no one's pain can be felt above his.and he is justified(to himself) and violent in everything he does, because of his survival instinct.that is why he keeps going back to cathy and hoping to receive what he needs.hoping she'll bend.but that's why he has no pity.there is no happiness,no ease,no joy,no sun,no plenty.symbols of it are everywhere,including in his petty household.that's why he clings to her after she dies.and why he doesn't kill himself.he wants to live.to have.it's the absolute need of the one picked from the streets.and there's no end to it.
so no,i don't think love is abstract.it's very simple.and with all sadness,this wasn't love.but it was a great story though..
P.S.this only from the romance pov.there's also social and moral...