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).

[Amy]

C-Cose wrote: "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 p..."

Would you be willing to share the text? Bravo on your perseverance!

[Gryph]

Amy wrote: "Would you be willing to share the text? Bravo on your perseverance!"

Greetings Amy :)

Once I've fully recovered from this *&^%)$ blech thing that's been dogging me for about 2 weeks now *achoo* ... lol :)

[Sheila]

I felt the same about Heathcliff. I felt for him in the beginning but than what he did to others was appalling. But I look at it like this. He probably had no one to guide him. He was abused himself. So he couldn't show the love he desperately graved. He thought he had it with Cathy. But she was as messed up as him.

Heathcliff is a character you love to hate.

[D]

I didn't like Cathy either. Perhaps had they stayed together they could have done great harm together?
I thought Heathcliffe was a disgusting person worse than many other villains in classics! I found the whole book very very bleak. I am now of the opinion that anyone thinking him a romantic bit of rough has either not read the book or is destined to be the wife of a wife beater.

[Amy]

C-Cose wrote: "Amy wrote: "Would you be willing to share the text? Bravo on your perseverance!"

Greetings Amy :)

Once I've fully recovered from this *&^%)$ blech thing that's been dogging me for about 2 weeks n..."

Thank you! Feel better soon!

[Doreen]

Darned if I know. I always preferred Jane Eyre, Rochester isn't a perfectly good guy, but he makes a better flawed hero than Heathcliff.

[Sheila]

Doreen wrote: "Darned if I know. I always preferred Jane Eyre, Rochester isn't a perfectly good guy, but he makes a better flawed hero than Heathcliff."

I can agree with that. He is rough around the edges. But in a smooth kind of way.

[Michele]

I was hoping Emily Bronte would turn Heathcliff around to be a decent person, but with such abuse there was no way Heatcliff would have been able to make a good life for himself without a therapist. (I don't think they had any good therapists back then). Bronte plays sort of a trick by creating the sexual tension between Heathcliff and Catherine and we fall right into it. It's ghastly, but I think there is some hope that lingers that Heathcliff deep down might be a good person after all, but unfortunately that does not come to fruition in this novel. Catherine was just as evil as Heathcliff and they deserved one another. But, there is that sexual tension that Bronte builds hoping they will one day be together. I guess it is a deranged way of looking at love or attraction... scary! Are we suckers for true love no matter what the cost?

[Peter]

Having read this book recently, I am intrigued too at the picture Bronte paints of Heathcliffe. I must admit, the dark villain has a mystery about him, as mentioned previously the directional approach of the narrative used should be viewed with some cynicism but interestingly it only lends to his intrigue. I must confess I did not really enjoy the book because the airy isolation one feels when reading it, the doom and despairing torment of Heathcliffe as a character is well constructed, a feral child who is both loved and hated, maybe it is the unevenness of these emotions that draws sympathy. His obsessional view of Cathy as the only person who shows him any inkling of love, and the power she has over him because of this, in essence she abuses this power, her remorse and at times anger for her flirtation with his trust only amplifies his obsession. I guess on the understanding of this misguided ideal of love and the creation of a sympathetic idol some people would form an attachment to him but I tend to look at him as cruel shadow of a man who is more than slightly mad...

Brontes use of other Gothic elements, such as dualism is evident, by juxtaposing characters, Heathcliff vs Lockwood, tough vs weak,Heathcliff vs Hindley,the reversal of fortune between the two only lends to the empathy readers feel towards Heathcliff, and perhaps gives some understanding into the source of his vengeful demeanour. The use of multiple narrators is also another brush in the Gothic writers palette, the evident bias opinion of Heathcliff only emphasises his characteristics. Bronte is obviously a fan of Gothic literature but as the book is split into two parts which are generational mirrors of each other, using the name Catherine twice adds to the confusion. But the second part of the book clearly reflects the writers ambition to return to a sense of normality(Shakespearean technique)a full circle of sorts.

[Lucinda]

Sheila wrote: "Doreen wrote: "Darned if I know. I always preferred Jane Eyre, Rochester isn't a perfectly good guy, but he makes a better flawed hero than Heathcliff."

I can agree with that. He is rough around ..."

Lol, Sheila, I love the way you put things! Welcome to all new people. C Cose, I hope you are soon recovered, and can share the results of those investigations, searching out Dr Stoneman's introduction with deerstalker hat and magnifying glass...

Briseis: Interesting comments indeed.
Apropos the 'Quasi Incest' theme that I mentioned, lots of people don't agree with that interpretation, but it has been the subject of various scholarly articles,by Dorathy Van Ghent, for one I think, in an article called 'Incest and Victorian Literature' if I remember rightly, and John Allen Stevenson on 'Heathcliff is Me...' forgotten the rest of the title, thickhead that I am, but I think it can be found on the web...

Interstingly, in that book Wuthering Heights, Penguin Critical Studies by Rod Mengham which I'm not crazy about as I think he falls over backwards too much to excuse Heathcliff, he makes this note
which is relevant to the whole lack of repentance thing which I found distressing. It may have been a preoccupation of Emily Bronte's in her Gondal poetry. I can't say I've read more than about two of those myself, but apparently she shows: -
'A particular interest in rather abstract discussion of vices and failings, and in wondering how far they are irreparable and how much they can be atoned for. She asks us to consider the deaths of unrepentant sinners, and in the Gondal poems occasionally focuses on rather Gothic figures who can only be descirbed through negative comparisons with ordinary human qualities. Several of these figures resemble Heathcliff.'

There's no pleasing me! A character whose actions I dislike nearly as much as those of Heathcliff is one created by Charlotte Bronte's friend Elizabeth Gaskell, Charley Kinraid in 'Sylvia's Lovers'. I dislike his fickleness to the heroine! How is that for inconsistancy!

[Briseis]

Lucinda wrote: "she shows...A particular interest in rather abstract discussion of vices and failings, and in wondering how far they are irreparable and how much they can be atoned for"

lol,we all have our quirkes...

[Dakota]

You can't ask me. I find it disgusting that Wuthering Heights is considered a great love story. Please, Heathcliff is a sociopath and so is Cathy. I still don't understand why anyone cares about either of them.

[Mloy]

I don't get it either. I recently finished reading this book and no way, no how is Heathcliff desirable in anyway. I understand that he had a difficult childhood, yes, and his later actions reflects that but his very manner is just repulsive-- he's boorish and rather than be an honorable gentleman, he sets out to destroy the one person he loved and everyone around her. There was nothing romantic about his unredeeming ways and I understand the stereotypical bad-boy attraction but a better example of a lovable-bad-boy character was either Jane Eyre's Mr. Rochester or Pride and Prejudice's Mr. Darcy. Atleast with those characters the initial reaction to their seemingly brash personalities is due to a misunderstanding by the heroine, but once their true nature is revealed, there is truly some good in them and so falling in love with that character is then justifiable. Heathcliff, on the other hand, was an unapologetic villain and proud of it. As he explained to Cathy he did not intend to deceive Isabella, he made no pretense about his character and presented himself to her as the cur he is but she still chose to see him through rose-colored glasses and invented an idiotic scenario in which her love would somehow change him into a better man (isn't that always the case?). In my humble opinion, Heathcliff was undeniably a villain, plain and simple; but I believe some readers see him as a victim and idealized him as a tragic hero because like Isabella, they chose to see what they want to see.

[Emma]

I was so happy to find this discussion. As for Heathcliff being the flawed hero, I have one word - Passion.
It is his one redeeming quality. He has passion in everything he does - when he loves, when he hates, when he seeks vengence. Passion is something Cathy could never get from Edgar. Passion is something Isabella could never give to Heathcliff.
It is what attracts "good" girls to "bad" boys. Passionate bad boys aren't safe or predictable, but they are capable and usually possessive of the object of their affection - making that object feel alive and excited and special.
Also, although Heathcliff does some unforgiveable things - it all comes back to his love for Cathy. He could have been a good man - a great man. What broke him irrevocably was the belief that his love chose another over him b/c of his poor circumstances - something he could not change or control. That set the course for Heathcliff's entire life. And every act afterward is a direct expression of his pain from Cathy rejecting him.
Heathcliff expresses his pain with rage. So the more hurt he is, the more he lashes out. If he is suffering than everyone around him will suffer as well. While this is certainly not a noble quality - it keeps him interesting - and I believe attracts others to him like a moth to a flame.
For me, the attraction of Wuthering Heights and Heathcliff in particular is the "what could have been." If Heathcliff had been sure of Cathy's devotion, he would have been a different man. Her love would have channeled his passion into positive things, as opposed to the desire to hurt everyone around him. Each time I read it, I have the illogical hope that things will be different - because with the feelings and passion they had for one another - theirs could have been a sublime love story.
In the end, we are left with the suggestion that in death, Heathcliff and Cathy are reunited. They finally have their HEA - and through that reunion they are both redeemed - reborn into the people they should have been, had their love for each other not turned so destructive.

“Be with me always - take any form - drive me mad! Only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you! Oh, God! It is unutterable! I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!”

[Terry]

{Knocking on the discussion door} Love this discussion, and all of you are so persuasive that I had to chew on this (had plenty of time to do just that during the hurricane...). So, my thoughts, for what they are worth.

I think there are two ways to read WH. One way is to take it at face value (i.e. the "passionate" love story) an the other way is academic (more of a textual analysis.)

From the perspective of the first one, I think that many readers (sadly) haven't been taught to differentiate from the movie and the actual text. In their mind's eye, perhaps they see Laurence Olivier standing at the window holding a dead Merle Oberon - the ultimate love lost. Those images are iconic, and I think they have to get in the way of seeing Heathcliffe and Cathy for who they really are.

In the pre-psychiatric era when Bronte wrote her story, we can only assume that Heathcliff's behavior was just accepted as quirky. Today, we have more experience with blatant narcissism and conscienceless violence. We're saturated with it.

With that being said, I would suggest that both Cathy and Heathcliffe are emotionally broken individuals who are driven to possession of the other. It's not a love story as we use the phrase. It's a story of unbridled out-of-this world domination of the soul of the other.
There is no caring. No empathy. No compassion. If anything, they are both kind of maniacal. They make co-dependency look healthy.

So, I'm on the side of Heathcliffe being one sick bastard. But Cathy is as well --they feed off of one another like emotional parasites. I think that's why WH is so timeless. Heathcliff walks around doing damage today, too. So maybe Bronte was on to something; just a little ahead of her time.

[Lucinda]

Terry wrote: "{Knocking on the discussion door} Love this discussion, and all of you are so persuasive that I had to chew on this (had plenty of time to do just that during the hurricane...). So, my thoughts, fo..."

Terry, you experienced that terrible hurricane? Goodness. I have only experienced a semi hurricane and that was bad enough; I'm glad you are enjoying the discussion, anyway.
I think you are so right - it doesn't come across as a love story, there is so little tenderness between them, even in their last meeting. There is something quite alarming about the co-dependency of Cathy and Heathcliff; as I have said, whilst distinguishing between the bad acts of a person and the person his or herself,I have been shocked at his brutalities.
Lol about the quirky!

[Nuriah]

I simply see Heathcliff as a candle; solid in it's appearance. An angry and tough person who would hurt everyone for the sake of love. But as soon as you lit that candle with fire (which is Catherine) he just melts and turns to a warm character that reveals the warm and romantic side of the person whose cruelty we all learnt to "un-tolerate" throughout the chapters.

[Terry]

Lucinda wrote: "Terry wrote: "{Knocking on the discussion door} Love this discussion, and all of you are so persuasive that I had to chew on this (had plenty of time to do just that during the hurricane...). So, m..."

Yes, I'm in Philadelphia so that beast put us through a ringer. To keep from getting scared out of my wits, I lived online for 2 days (as there was nothing else to do except stare out the window waiting for the trees to come down.) A real horror show.

Anyway, I actually find Cathy more interesting than Heathcliff. We know he's probably a walking advertisement for PTSD from childhood, so it's slightly understandable that while he's tall, dark, and Alpha -- he's also one sick and violent puppy. Cathy, on the other hand, had a fairly normal childhood. Not sure what made her turn as dark as H. Maybe she just wanted it all and manipulated everyone around her to get it. Bronte certainly had something churning in her own soul to come up with these two characters and I'm really curious about that!

[Lucinda]

Welcome, Everyone!
Goodness, Terry. Two days of that! Horrors. Whatever speeds did the wind reach? I'm glad the thread provided some diversion from watching that. I was in London when what the BBC insisted wasn't a hurricane hit the South East in 1987 (old, or what?) even that uprooted thousands of trees. There were no warnings before it hit at 2am.
I seem to recall that Earnshaw senior ages incredibly rapidly and becomes grouchy and sour, turning against Hindley for being against Heathcliff and against Cathy for being mischievous, and Joseph's nasty, uncharitable form of religion seems to have the effect of making her hate Christian values, but yes, she doesn't really suffer dreadfully as a child, and by the time Hindley cracks up following Frances' death and the whole neighbourhood avoids him, she's adolescent, and her personality has presumably been largely formed. The line CCose has been pursuing, that Cathy was interested in a 'non exclusive' relationship with Edgar and Heathcliff, is a fascinating idea,but he's on sick leave.

[A.J.]

Look at the love interest in 50 Shades, a controlling jerk who marginalizes the female chracter away from her friends etc (confession, I only read the 15 page sample chapter to see what the hype was about and got aggravated) but oh, he's "misunderstood" and had a bad upbringing. Of course "Wuthering Heights" is better reading. But as an ER doc who sees people going back to their abusers I don't get it either. Smarten up ladies!

[Lucinda]

Goodness, AJ, that is a cold dose of reality indeed.

[A.J.]

Lucinda wrote: "Goodness, AJ, that is a cold dose of reality indeed."

Night shifts this weekend. I'm cranky. :)

[Terry]

Ahhhh, as a nurse I felt the same way....until I read "Into the Darkest Corner." It can get so bad there is more fear in leaving than there is in staying, and that's saying something. It's getting involved with those losers in the first place that's the kicker.

[Lucinda]

Terry wrote: "Ahhhh, as a nurse I felt the same way....until I read "Into the Darkest Corner." It can get so bad there is more fear in leaving than there is in staying, and that's saying something. It's getting ..."

Not cranky at all, AJ. Just realistic! I so agree with both you and Terry. There is a dreadful problem in women wanting to 'fix' abusive men, believing that it can be done with enough love, etc etc.

[Terry]

Lucinda wrote: "Terry wrote: "Ahhhh, as a nurse I felt the same way....until I read "Into the Darkest Corner." It can get so bad there is more fear in leaving than there is in staying, and that's saying something...."

Not to sound snarky, but I think that some women stay with abusive men and want/try to fix them because some fiction suggests that they can. It is not erotic to be abused. I'm thinking of something like Sylvia Day's Reflected in You -- there is a scene where the guy is not just dominant, but overtly abusive. Then they make love. Huh?? What does that suggest to vulnerable women?

[Sheila]

That's not uncommon at all. A lot of women don't press charges against abusive men because those pigs have just worked on those women psyche so much they feel worthless.

[C.P.]

I think there is a historical element here that we may be overlooking. People in Brontë's time still saw romantic passion as a destructive force, in the sense of destructive to rationally planned marriage arrangements. You can see an echo of this view in Austen's Sense and Sensibility, although Austen is already shifting toward a more "modern" perspective in which personal attraction is one factor worthy of consideration.

I know that doesn't explain the lasting attraction of Heathcliff, and I agree that Laurence Olivier probably bears a good deal of responsibility for that. But I think it is worth remembering that Brontë probably saw Wuthering Heights more as a story of romantic obsession (a cautionary tale) than as a model to follow.

[A.J.]

Terry wrote: "Ahhhh, as a nurse I felt the same way....until I read "Into the Darkest Corner." It can get so bad there is more fear in leaving than there is in staying, and that's saying something. It's getting ..."

Real self-esteem for girls, inoculate them early! I know I'm off topic for a book thread but as a mom as well this one gets me steamed.

[Melissa]

I last read this book as an impressionable 13 or 14 year old and I didn't find Heathcliffe remotely 'romantic' either, which was a revelation, given the perception of the character I had grown accustomed to.

It is very much a book of it's era and it is pretty unrelentingly brutal. I agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to engage with the characters of Heathcliffe or Cathy, especially as a modern reader. However, the point about 'social class' is an interesting one - perhaps the book is 'demonstrating' that is dangerous to move out of one's social class, as suggested earlier. Also, Heathcliffe is introduced as a 'foundling'. I may have this wrong but I seem to recall that there were suggestions of foreign or 'gypsy' blood. In this case, perhaps Emily was alluding to a kind of 'godlessness' or lack of 'Christian' values...she was a vicar's daughter right? Also, doesn't Cathy come back as a ghost, her soul in perpetual torment (or is that just a construct from a film)?

Cathy is another character in the book who is horribly misrepresented on film. Again, she's a pretty nasty piece of work. If you want to put a modern twist on their respective psychologies, then perhaps 'narcissist' works as good as any? If anything, I've always believed their 'love' was based on the fact that they saw themselves reflected in one another. I also seem to remember Heathcliffe being portrayed as very well-dressed and with an 'upright' countenance, following his time in the army. I am reminded of a comment I heard recently about the 'facist' obsession with appearance.

I think things get skewed in Heathcliffe's favour because he is easier to identify with than Cathy on account of his mysterious and unfortunate past, thereby making him the 'working class anti hero' in contrast to Cathy as the spoilt rich kid. This, again, is perhaps a more modern reading than was orginally intended but who knows?

All I really know is that this is not a love story. It is, however, a great (if flawed) book, which deserves it's place in literary history. If anything, it taught me that you don't always have to 'sympathise' with or even 'like' characters to find them interesting. It is even possible to hate them.

[V.]

The idea of Heathcliff as an 'anti-hero' strikes me as a little strange. My understanding of the term is of a character that exists in a morally ambiguous space because they have a pattern of performing 'bad' acts for noble or admirable reasons (cf. villains, who do bad things for bad reasons- obviously though, there is a sliding scale at work here).

On the face of it, Heathcliff seems to do a lot of bad things for a lot of bad, selfish reasons. His primary motivating factors appear to be possession, jealousy, bitterness etc so I struggle to see a 'noble cause' underpinning the violence, anger and punishment he inficts on those around him. I think you'd need a rather loose definition of love if you were to argue that his obsession with Catherine stands in the place of the typical noble intention that is generally the source of appeal in anti-heroes. Isn't he more villain than anti-hero?

Heathcliff's guardedness, volatility and obsession do seem to appeal to some readers, though for reasons I personally can't understand. I wonder if the genders of the two protagonists were reversed, would the Heathcliff character still be mysterious and conflicted, or just a jealous harpy?

[Melissa]

It's less that we love Heathcliff than that he simply hijacks our interest because he's absolutely the strongest character in the book. He stomps all over everybody else.

[Lucinda]

Continuing interesting comments, everyone. Re: the anti hero comments, I think that's fascinating, for sure Heathcliff doesn't seem to be inspired by anything but the desire for revenge once Cathy is dead. Once he loses that desire, he hasn't got anything left to live for. I think I said earlier that in some book of critical essays on WH recently, I came across the fascinating comment that Emily Bronte in her poems continually addresses the problem of the fate of unrepentant, Gothic characters on the lines of Heathcliff. Only having read a couple of her poems, I couldn't comment, but for sure, the moral issues must have intrigued her. I think the Bronte's aunt had rigid views about sin and punishment, but Anne Bronte, who was Emily's closest companion, had very advanced and compassionate ones which precluded the notion of eternal punishment.

I think someone, Terry Eagleton, was it? Points out that Heathclif's in an ambiguous position because while he challanges the property rights of the landlowning class (the Lintons, on a less elevated scale the Earnshaw's) he becomes a 'cruel hard landlord' himself in turn.
Victoria, That is so astute, I so agree! I think if a woman acted like Heathcliff in a story she would be regarded as the worst villainess of all time, and nobody would make excuses for her, however tall dark and striking she was, lol...

[Cheryl]

Melissa wrote: "It's less that we love Heathcliff than that he simply hijacks our interest because he's absolutely the strongest character in the book. He stomps all over everybody else."

Yep!

[Lucinda]

Mellisa and Cheryl, For sure the character of Heathcliff is absorbing in its intensity, but I have to say I can't find Heathcliff strong; people motivated by hatred (like Nazis?) can appear to be strong because they 'stomp all over everyone else' yet to be a bully isn't to be strong. Intriguingly, Heathcliff's sense of identity is totally wrapped up in Cathy's, and that is a weakness usually attributed to women in patriarchal societies.

[Anna]

C.P. wrote: "I think there is a historical element here that we may be overlooking. People in Brontë's time still saw romantic passion as a destructive force, in the sense of destructive to rationally planned m..."

As a cautionary tale...I'd grant it shelf space!

[Clarissa]

I am very late to this discussion, but reading through the many comments I couldn't see (sorry if I missed it!) one of the things that has always been very important to my reading of WH. That it is a double framed narrative, this tale of uncontrolled passion is told to us by Lockwood, a man who runs away from romance to play at being a romantic figure in a place he can't understand, and it is told to him by Nelly, a spinster who is fated always to be on the edge, and never to understand the passions of the characters whose story she is a custodian of.
Neither of the narrators see the love between Cathy and Heathcliff, it is something that the reader has to create and imagine themselves, which is why Heathcliff can be imagined into some sort of heroic anti hero as the creation of him as a person is in a way more up to the reader than the narrators. So much about him is unknown, including even a key thing like what his race is, I think a recent film had him portrayed by a black actor. It allows the reader and many critics to argue about nature and nurture, oppressed or oppressor, tyrant or victim.

In the wider story I see redemption coming with the second generation who are able to complete their love despite the looming figure of Heathcliff desperately chasing the ghost of his teenage love.

[Michele]

Clari wrote: "I am very late to this discussion, but reading through the many comments I couldn't see (sorry if I missed it!) one of the things that has always been very important to my reading of WH. That it is..."

Yes - the filters make so much difference. One can have a set of 'facts' and depending on which newspaper reports it the story emerging could paint any of the protagonists as villians by carefully picking and choosing certain pieces to fit the intended slant.

Without knowing the full story one is left trying to fill in the gaps or not depending on who is the reader.

[Lucinda]

CP, Yes, that aspect, a warning about obsession, may well have been true; re; 'Sense and Sensability', my gut reaction was always, conversely to my reaction to WH, disappointment that Willoughby and Marianne never got together: Willoughby was such fun.
Clari and Michelle, Yes, that complex series of perspectives seems to have caused an endless possibility of interpretation.

[Lucinda]

A belated welcome, Michele. As you can see from my posts above, I can't agree with your views myself - I think in that time, Heathcliffe was not seen as romantic by the (few) women reviewers, judging from the reviews, and we don't have access to the thoughts of the readers who didn't review the novel. My own view, as no doubt you know from reading the thread, is that the 'romantic' Heathcliff is a comparatively modern development following the films, which tend to emphasize his ill treatment at Hindley's hands rather than his later barbaric cruelties towards Isabella, the younger Catherine, etc.
However, this is all a matter of opinion, and many would agree with you.
Rochester may well have been seen as more 'romantic' but he does repent, which Victorian women, raised in a religious age, would no doubt have seen as important towards the reader finding him acceptable as Jane's soul mate at the end.
Nice talking to you.

[Michele]

Bogdan wrote: "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 ..."
This is exactly the point I was trying (and failing) to make in a great many more words than you used. I don't find Heathcliff attractive in any way whatsoever but I do see him as romantic - because he is entirely motivated by his passion and is inexorably doomed by it.

[Clarissa]

Michele wrote: "I do see him as romantic - because he is entirely motivated by his passion and is inexorably doomed by it."

If you read Heathcliff as entirely motivated by his love for Cathy, than he is an incredibly romantic and passionate figure to read about when juxtaposed against normal mundane life. I don't think it means most women would choose him if he was a real person, the same as I guess in modern literature most woman wouldn't want to meet the hero of Shades of Grey!

[Lucinda]

Clari wrote: "Michele wrote: "I do see him as romantic - because he is entirely motivated by his passion and is inexorably doomed by it."

If you read Heathcliff as entirely motivated by his love for Cathy, than..."

Welcome, Michelle. An interesting argument indeed. I personally cannot see a man who bullies woman as any sort of a man at all, whatever his romantic frustrations towards one love object, but it is a matter of opinion. As you will see from my posts on the above discussion, I am a bit concerned about women who might bring over from their enjoyment of flawed, melodramatic types in their reading a desire to 'fix' an abusive man. I think the A and E doctor who posted earlier had a valid point...I am also a little concerned at the lack of female fellow feeling for poor Isabella so often demonstrated by women readers of WH.
EB had a fascination, according to one study, as I mention above, with the spiritual fate of unrepentant Gothic types who do terrible things; I think Heathcliff can be read as an example of this.

[Lucinda]

Clari wrote: "Michele wrote: "I do see him as romantic - because he is entirely motivated by his passion and is inexorably doomed by it."

If you read Heathcliff as entirely motivated by his love for Cathy, than..."
Michelle, a belated welcome to the discussion. I never thought to get so many posts!
For sure, the term 'Romantic' was used differently by Byron, etc and Emily Bronte was familiar with these writers and there is a different modern use of the term; I am never sure from which angle posters are describing Heathcliff as a 'romantic' figure. She was also fascinated by the concept, it seems from her poems, of the spiritual fate awaiting an unrepentant Gothic character motivated by wild passions and hatred: this would seem to be bourne out in her invention and treatment of Heathcliff.
I am a little perturbed by the possibility of modern woman taking their fascination with abusive, damaged male characters into real life, with disasterous results. A doctor who works in a casualty department and has seen many abused women came on this thread earlier and made the point succinctly.
Shall I say, I cannot see how anyone can see Heathcliff as a 'romantic figure' in the modern, appealing-as-a-man sense of the term as for me, a man who is violent to women is no sort of man at all.

[John]

Heathcliff is a thoroughly despicable person. Sure, he had a horrible childhood, and that may make his cruelty understandable, but that understanding doesn't absolve him of moral responsibility for the consequences of his behavior. His love for Cathy is not enough to redeem him.

I've never seen the movies, though; I've only read the book, so for all I know, the movie version of Heathcliff might not be as despicable as the character in the book.

[Melanie]

I really did not care for the book, and I think in large part do to not liking either Heathcliff or Cathy.

In the modern world if we really did not want the "bad boy" to win then no one should have bought an album by Chris Brown after he beat up Rihanna. Michael Vick shouldn't have a career either. I'm sure there are others, but those two quickly come to mind.

[Mary]

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 think that Heathcliff is an admonition against what might pass for true love, but in reality is obsession. Hareton redemption is the foil to Heathcliff's "love." Both had abusive childhoods, but Heathcliff turns to vengence while Hareton is transformed by Catherine Linton's unselfish love. Catherine Earnshaw was just as damaged and self-centerd as Heathcliff IMO. This is a story (again my opinion) of the next generation getting it right.

[Ruby]

Let us not forget that Wuthering Heights has a mythological value, and they all tend to be different. I love this book because of this aspect, which in my opinion, is the highest level writers can reach in their careers.
If one visits those parts of Ireland, even today the natural conditions are more or less the same, isolated, gloomy and somewhat myserious.
Bronte sisters were the greatest critiques of a social order totally based on injustice.

[Mary]

Lucinda wrote: "Shall I say, I cannot see how anyone can see Heathcliff as a 'romantic figure' in the modern, appealing-as-a-man sense of the term as for me, a man who is violent to women is no sort of man at all. .."

I think one can see a literary character as a romantic figure while at the same time recognizing his deep, deep flaws. The key to any empathy for Heathcliff is his childhood experience IMO. We can understand how he came to be the vicious, vengeful adult because of the abuse and lack of grounding parental influence. I think that "romantic" is a term that means different things to different people. I see Heathcliff as a tragic romantic figure because his entire being is about his failed romance with Cathy. This does not mean I approve of his romantic nature. In other words...romantic because of the subject matter, not because this particular type of romance is something to yearn for. I can understand Heathcliff even if I do not particularly like him. I do not personally subscribe to the opinion that liking a character in a book translates into poor choices in real life.

[Michele]

Clari wrote: "Michele wrote: "I do see him as romantic - because he is entirely motivated by his passion and is inexorably doomed by it."

If you read Heathcliff as entirely motivated by his love for Cathy, than..."
I deliberately used the word passion. That is not the same thing as love for Cathy. I don't think he did love Cathy. His passion was entirely narcissistic and continued after her death unabated. As I say - my use of the word romantic does not mean a 'lurve' figure - it means a character used by a writer to demonstrate the tragedy of behaving in a manner that is not tempered by common sense or good judgement but is in effect a 'pure' example of immoveable object upon which the irresistible force of the plot can act upon to dramatic effect.
Basically if you can imagine the male character in a frilly shirt spouting dramatic dialogue into the wind during a storm without laughing at the idea - you have probably got yourself a romantic hero. Especially if he is more bothered about feeling hard done by than realising he should get in away from the lightning etc

[Pam]

I'ts simple...He loved hard and deep...any woman would want to be loved that much