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).

[Michele]

I don't think he did. I think he wanted to own Cathy so that he would feel equal to those who had oppressed him and belittled him. I think he was obsessed with making people pay for what he had suffered and Cathy was part of that. He was passionate - but it was the same passion a stalker has for his object. He just happened to be lucky that Cathy loved him for her own reasons. I think he would have taken her if possible even if she had loathed him. His passion was hatred rather than love.

[Lucinda]

Fascinating comments, everyone, particularly the last, Michelle. I am myself intrigued by having found out how fascinated Bronte was by what happened in the next world to the unretentant, Byronic melodramatic figure (romantic in the classic sense): according to one study, her poems continually return to the theme. I have to say that I have only read a few of her Gondal poems myself. Obviously, given her unorthodox views, she didn't believe in a simple notion of damnation or anything like that (as Joseph does) but she was concerned about the spiritual regeneration of such tragical mistaken indiviudals, perhaps? For sure, one should distinguish between the person and the dreadful things that he or she may do.

[Carolyn]

I just finished reading this book and did not see Heathcliff as a romatic hero at all! I found him to be a horrible villain. The book was not at all what I expected as people talk of it as some great love story. Even thought it was not what I expected I did enjoy the book a lot.

[Rebecca]

This is a great discussion. It really shows how differently readers take in books, how differently everyone sees themes.

[Lucinda]

Carolyn wrote: "I just finished reading this book and did not see Heathcliff as a romatic hero at all! I found him to be a horrible villain. The book was not at all what I expected as people talk of it as some gre..."

Carolyn - welcome to the discussion. There's been a lot of discussion on this about the original and modern meanings of the word 'romantic' but I agree, Heathcliff does dreadful things and becomes brutalised as people must, when they do (though he retains some feeling for both Hareton and Nelly Dean). I found the writing is incredibly strong, though melodramatic at times; it was only when I read in Ron' Whatsits' book on WH about Emily Bronte's fascination with the topic of unrepentent Gothic characters in her poetry(I've only read a couple of her poems) that I began to have a vague idea why she had left Heathcliff unrepentant at the end.

[Lucinda]

Talk about synchrhonicity, Rebecca, I was just thinking about you! It's amazing, isn't it, how open to interpretation every book is? I have said a couple of times on here how I found Heathcliff's never getting over his romantic disappointment to border on the ridiculous, but I was disgusted by how the romantic interest (in the modern sense) of Elizabeth Gaskell's 'Sylvia's Lovers', Charley Kinraid, acts when disappointed in love;(that;s a fascinating book about female and male roles in a whaling community); he proves so superficial that he happily marries someone else a few months after a soul-wrenching parting from the heroine. There's no pleasing me!

[[deleted user]]

Pam wrote: "I'ts simple...He loved hard and deep...any woman would want to be loved that much"
True.

[Lucinda]

Hello, Pam and Brooke. For sure deep passion is stimulating, but this does raise issues of female solidarity, I think (looks solemn). I'm sure you don't mean this, but I would be horrified at the thought that any woman would actually enjoy the thought of a man idolising her while being brutal to others, ie the infatuated Isabella just because he was disappointed in not having the one he'd set his heart on.
As I say, I'm sure you didn't mean that, though, and you're talking me about the depth of passion that later gives rise to those terrible consequences?
Emily Bronte's depictions were never simple, though readers reactions' might be; she was so fascinated by concepts of good and evil.
I have often thought how Cathy is in the beyond watching Heathcliff's later actions, you may be sure she isn't happy about his treatment of Isabella, her daughter, brother, nephew, etc if her attitude when alive is anything to go by.

[Julia Joanne Black]

LOL! Heathcliff, romantic hero? No way. He is far from being romantic. Heathcliff does not acts the way he acts for nothing. He acts like that for a reason. He wanted to be accepted, understood and most of all LOVED. He loved Cathy and but because of his past and of whom he is he didnt know how to gain her love. He thought that he must take her love by force and violence. This character is way more profound than a romantic hero. He is the perfect example of people who feel and ARE loveless and need desperately for love. Somehow, Heathcliff's love for Cathy is viewed more like an obsession. He desires something that he practically cannot have.

[Laura]

C-Cose wrote: "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 flawe..."

Very interesting that somebody has an idea what "Romantic" meant during that time. The Romantic Period was all about the extremes of feelings, passions and the darker nature of the human nature. And although this book is written at the beginning of the Victorian period it is often used to illustrate the features of the Romantic Period. Note that "Romantic" has not the same meaning as it has today.

Heathcliff is a Romantic hero because he loves Cathy so passionately and is very cruel in doing so. He is so extreme because of the social circumstances (he was abandoned, he came from a place were there were many oppressions due to the industrial revolution, etc...I suggest you look up the meaning of the name Heathcliff) and illustrates perfectly how dark we can be.

Heathcliff is also influenced by the image of the Byronic Hero (not an anti-hero!). The Byronic hero is a character that is lonely, suffers alone and very mysterious, he knows the human nature really well, is scorned by the rest of society and described as lone, wild and strange. He stands above others. Emily Brontë and her sisters were influenced by this image of this mysterious man and used it in their novels.

Note that this is a superficial analysis but sums up the important things to answer the question above. And I have not read all of the posts so I don't know if somebody already explained near the end of this thread. You can use http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/wutheri... if you want a deeper analysis.

[Lucinda]

Welcome, Laura,thanks for explanation and the link, but I think there's a slight misunderstanding; I do know the concept of the Byronic hero as amoral outsider etc etc ( invariably, you notice, as befits patriarchy, a man; I'd be interested to know if there are any female Byronic heroes - Cathy doesn't exactly fit the mould).
My question was rather how Heathcliff himself fits into this mould (which, with the implication that this dramatic, tormented, brutal individual was somehow 'above' the morality of other people, was rightly treated satirically by Pushkin in 'Eugene Onegin' ) given his acts are those of petty bullying, as often as not of women and children, which was not a thing these Byronic characters are generally portrayed as doing.
In fact, as I have said above, there is something quite bathetic about the juxtaposition of Heathcliff as prosaic Yorkshire penny pinching farmer and landlord, eating porridge for dinner, and his melodramatic Byronic utterances; how far this was meant by Emily Bronte to be ridiculous, I have no idea...
Further,I was expressing my surprise that given the meanness of his acts, modern readers, perhaps not aware of the Gothic sense of the romantic, find him appealing and 'romantic' in the modern sense.
I'll change the wording of my question, I think, to preclude misunderstandings.
For sure as I also say above, you must distinguish between hating a person or even a character's evil acts and hating the person/character, but I am sure Emily Bronte didn't consider Heathcliff to be 'above' ethical norms, though he may, like Eugene Onegin, have considered himself so. I was fascinated by the comment of one of the other contributors as to what people would make of a woman who acted as Heathcliff does - if only it had been possible in Britain at that time. That is a brilliant point.

[Laura]

Lucinda,

I must say that English is not my native tongue and therefore i can understand if there are possible misunderstandings. I did not want to sound denigrating but simply wanted to explain something that did not seem to be known by some readers.

[Lucinda]

Laura wrote: "Lucinda,

I must say that English is not my native tongue and therefore i can understand if there are possible misunderstandings. I did not want to sound denigrating but simply wanted to explain so..."

Lol, Laura, your English is far better than my French or my Welsh, anyway! I wouldn't have known it wasn't your first language.

Don't worry, I'm not at all offended,as I think my original question, which was meant ironically, was phrased in such a way as to give rise to said misunderstandings. I was using a bit of good old British humourous sarcasm in the question as originally phrased, and it might puzzle someone not familiar with how peculiar the British can be...Nice talking to you, and I am sure people on this thread will find those links intriguing.

[[deleted user]]

It's a failing of mine. The more screwed up a character is, the more I like him/her!
(Maybe because they remind me of me...Yikes!)

[Lucinda]

Brooke, I know what you mean, I'm usually the same,believe it or not, siding with the person everyone hates. I even managed to feel sorry for George in Vanity Fair. Plus, I fully admit to a silly romantic strak, so that I wanted Henry Crawford to be genuinely repentant and Fanny Price fall for him in Mansfield Park. If Heathcliff had confined his nastiness to adult males, I probably would have sympathised with him, lol.

[Farfished9]

This is a very interesting discussion. I find it interesting how literal the interpretations are. I never once considered what I consider to be the obvious. I might have when I was younger (reading this book) but I honestly cannot remember. If I recall..I didn't understand the book AT ALL...not enough to form intelligent opinions on it anyway...hell...any opinions other than 'it sucked' =)

I find it interesting how the focus seems to be on 1--whether or not we can accept Heathcliff as a decent/excusable human being...and 2--is he crush worthy?

Ummm...really? I second that motion that this discussion needs some perspective other than the A-typical female minded response...I'm baffled.

[Farfished9]

Julia wrote: "LOL! Heathcliff, romantic hero? No way. He is far from being romantic. Heathcliff does not acts the way he acts for nothing. He acts like that for a reason. He wanted to be accepted, understood and..."

I could not disagree more...LOL...with most of this, anyway...

Isn't it cool how we can see stories so differently?? Loooove that about books, man...

=)

[Lucinda]

Hi, Farfished! Great to hear from you. On the Bronte male characters, I was thinking of that old sexist M. Paul Emmanual yesterday evening, and thinking that the awful thing is, that impossible patriarch is quite endearing in a way...Ha,ha, don't think I'm not holding you to reading 'Sylvia's Lovers' and giving me feedback on your take on the superficial Kinraid (Heathcliff's opposite) either...

[Julia Joanne Black]

Farfished9 wrote: "Julia wrote: "LOL! Heathcliff, romantic hero? No way. He is far from being romantic. Heathcliff does not acts the way he acts for nothing. He acts like that for a reason. He wanted to be accepted, ..."
The you have read the book in vain. You have understood nothing.

[[deleted user]]

There is nothing romantic about WH. The people who call it or any of its characters "romantic" obviously misunderstood didn't read it.

[Lucinda]

Julia wrote: "Farfished9 wrote: "Julia wrote: "LOL! Heathcliff, romantic hero? No way. He is far from being romantic. Heathcliff does not acts the way he acts for nothing. He acts like that for a reason. He want..."

Welcome, Julia. I don't think anyone on here has 'read the book in vain' and 'understood nothing' though we may disagree with each other's opinions.

[Linda]

I loved this book but if anyone wants to understand the nature of Heathcliffe they could do worse than read Andrea Dworkin's essay on Wuthering Heights. Its an interesting view that the book is not a romantic novel per se but an expose of child abuse....an interesting perspective anyway.

[Currer]

I totally understand what you're saying. Heathcliff is one of literature's most reprehensible characters. I was 16 when I read the book and I knew at that moment that Heathcliff was not the sort of character that Emily Bronte meant to have the public sympathize with. I don't think she wrote a character who was suppose to be favored or disliked, she simply wrote. But in our modern age it's easier to read a story when you have someone to root for. Linton is... Linton there's not much to be said there, but here are Heathcliff and Cathy who long to be with each other, but their own issues get in the way and then leads to their death. It's interesting to watch a man like Heathcliff because he has no concept of compassion and human decency, and to his dying day he did not ask for forgiveness. He was fine with everything he did. I think when people point to Heathcliff as a byronic character it is only because he paints that dark side of love and obsession, to the point where he forsakes his humanity for it. I really hope that no one reads Wuthering Heights and comes away with the impression that Heathcliff is anything more than some funny, hateful one liners and the poster child for don't let your anger control your actions. He was never intended to be a Darcy or a Rochester; Emily Bronte simply wasn't that kind of a writer.

[Farfished9]

Julia wrote: "Farfished9 wrote: "Julia wrote: "LOL! Heathcliff, romantic hero? No way. He is far from being romantic. Heathcliff does not acts the way he acts for nothing. He acts like that for a reason. He want..."

Hehe. I've read the book 3 times. The first time I was 12 or 13 years old and (you're right) if I recall...I understood NOTHING! =) I'd read Jane Eyre half a dozen times by that age, so I thought I'd give her sis a go. It went completely over my head.

The second time I read the book, I was in my late teens. I understood much more--but I hated it. I promised a dear friend of mine to keep an open mind and to keep trying at it because she loves it so much.

I last read it last year...and guess what?? I didn't hate it!! LOL. I did not like it very much...but I *appreciated* it quite a bit. I respect it as a work. I felt proud of myself for not giving up...and for growing a bit.

I'll read it again in a few years. Maybe then I will even like it!

=) Best wishes...

[Farfished9]

Lucinda wrote: "Hi, Farfished! Great to hear from you. On the Bronte male characters, I was thinking of that old sexist M. Paul Emmanual yesterday evening, and thinking that the awful thing is, that impossible pat..."

He was like that teacher who pushes you beyond what you think you are capable of...The one who hounds you and never accepts anything less than they think you have in you. Those teachers seem annoying at the time and you wish they'd get off your back...but then later on you realize how much they helped you to grow because they got you to work so much harder than you were originally willing to.

He was a lover of learning and of intellect...a life long learner (even if he did seem very close minded, so much of the time)

[Farfished9]

Brooke wrote: "There is nothing romantic about WH. The people who call it or any of its characters "romantic" obviously misunderstood didn't read it."

I did not find it romantic either.

[Farfished9]

Linda wrote: "I loved this book but if anyone wants to understand the nature of Heathcliffe they could do worse than read Andrea Dworkin's essay on Wuthering Heights. Its an interesting view that the book is not..."

I have heard of that...Thanks for the suggestion!

[Linda]

Hello Farfished9.....Am not saying she is right but its an interesting perspective. You will find the essay in her book Letters from a War Zone. XX

[Farfished9]

I thought it felt like the author was asking questions through her story, rather than providing answers or directly telling us something. It felt, to me, like she was genuinely asking something...which she did not know the answers to, herself.

I think maybe the author was questioning the concept of human nature in regards to unconditional love. Is it a purely natural thing we are born to do or is created by other feelings of human nature (hope...guilt...loyalty)...by social or religious programming?

I think maybe she'd questioned if the only certain and undeniable unconditional love that we are born with is the love a person feels for themselves...in that nice, acceptable way we love ourselves (through self respect...dignity...empathy...kindness) or in the less nice way (totally self serving...at any cost...getting what we want or feel we need through disregarding or harming others)...

[Farfished9]

The story being told BY an outsider--TO an outsider (that's THIS book, right??? lol oh dear me...) felt like it could represent the author knowing little more than the readers...and seeking our opinions on things.

PS--this is all just how I *felt*...I don't think we can assume to know what authors are really thinking in their writing (unless they've told us)...

[Lucinda]

Those are fascinating ideas, Farfished.

A selfish love turns to the purposes of hatred quickly, like that of Heathcliff, who is damaged and becomes wildly abusive himself, as Linda indicates.

I think the build up of hatred in the house of Wuthering Heights is like a sort of psychic force. As I say above, Emile Bronte was, according to some biographer, fascinated by the concept of the Gothic
'lost violent soul' who does not repent and the spiritual issues connected with that (obviously, she didn't believe in hell and damnation).

I get the impression Emily Bronte tries to have an affirmation of human values at the end of the story in the happy outcome of the love between the younger version of Heathcliff (Hareton, who doesn't allow himself to become completely warped by his degradation and feels love for his oppressor Heathcliff, who in fact develops human feeling for him in turn) and the younger Catherine, who can see beyond Hareton's degradation.

Obviously, it's a sort of re-run of the earlier relationship with a happier outcome.

However, because Heathcliff never regrets his cruelties, I felt that the book ends with a bleakness overhanging it for all this.

[Farfished9]

Perhaps these two despicable people loved above and beyond what any of us can consider to be love. Maybe their version of love is the truth--that none of us really love anyone but ourselves...and they are the most brutally honest picture of the true nature of love...and the rest of us are too scared to admit this...or are simply in denial...living in a fantasy. Maybe the author was questioning this.

Neither of the main characters loved one another--that is clear (to me). That they were not able to love others because they could not love themselves might be a very easy, cliche answer. I think they DID love themselves and that's all.

It was not our concept of love (in the basic purity of its meaning)--either romantic or otherwise, which bound these characters to one another...it was fixation. Fixation replaced their sense of love because for both, this was the height of capacity...this was their shared form (and idea) of love.

This is not the same as how we readers view and feel love. No amount of rationalization from the perspectives of a healthful idea of love can be placed here and there, amid the nature of what was between them, in order to explain away the lack of...or the extreme dysfunction. Prescribing aspects of what we understand and know valid forms of love to be will not turn the unhealthy and selfish...the cruel and depraved... into something that is acceptable in the eyes of 'our idea of love.' The two do not relate as we struggle to make them...the two are different in nature, and separate. No amount of wishing or wanting for the good that is in ourselves, to be found in others can make it so. Yet we want for this to be the case, so badly...

We are encouraged to believe so...particularly by religious concepts.

[Farfished9]

Furthermore--even if each character lives near totally by what each wants for themselves...and are completely selfish on every other level of being--they both live in a real world which has programmed them, too...to think love must be linked to a being outside of themselves.

To the other, each was just a tool used in trying to relate to their own sense of being, thoughts, and behaviors...to their own sense of self and of self love...a means to an end. Maybe that was as far as either was capable of loving another person and so for them...it was love.

I will do this for you...I will do anything (including evil) for you...to you...with you. The key word and always prevalent...most valued and important theme for each is the "I" not the "you"...they drive themselves (are driven on their own behalves), not the other way around. But one can become confused...especially in all the drama.

I do not offer my love to you in the honest, pure intension that is only the wish and desire to offer my love...because I love you. I did not give my love purely because it was my joy and honor and blessing to be able to give. Rather, I invested my love in you--seeking a return. When my investment falls through and I don't get what I was expecting, in return...I say that you do not love me. I did not give my love (not truly)..I did not send it out into the universe (at peace with it never returning, should it be the case). I invested it with my chief interest being...well, myself...not the act or the miracle of love...nor you.

Is the author questioning whether or not we are all like this?...Any better than these unlikable characters?

[Lucinda]

Those are fascianting concepts, Farfished, and I will have to think of them a while before responding. I think I tend to agree, on the whole.

[May]

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 AGREE

[Farfished9]

Lucinda wrote: "Those are fascianting concepts, Farfished, and I will have to think of them a while before responding. I think I tend to agree, on the whole."

I have a lot more than that to support my view...or...not really support, but expand upon...

When I said to Julia that I could not disagree with her view more...I was not meaning to poke fun or pick a debate. I meant just what I said...I think it is so cool (and fun...stimulating) to consider how one story can mean so many different things to different readers.

If I were to say what I feel would be most likely...in how the work is to be interpreted...I would say the views you and other people on here offer. So many of these views are BASED on something...y'all did your research and gathered lots of info and looked into things which led to the possibilities and conclusions given. I'd place more stock in what you guys say simply because of that...Even if I got different feelings from my experience of reading it.

[Lucinda]

Farfished9 wrote: "Lucinda wrote: "Those are fascianting concepts, Farfished, and I will have to think of them a while before responding. I think I tend to agree, on the whole."

I have a lot more than that to suppor..."

I so agree, Farfished! It's fascinating to hear another's take on a novel, and on what grounds s/he bases that opinion.
Often, one modifies ones view, too...Even I do, though I seem so obsurate! I recently changed my mind about a writer I had long considered to expound dismal internalised misogyny in her novels. Some male reviewers came on and told me I was wrong and that didn't change my opinion a jot, but one women used reason and persuasion, and I saw her point!

[Shane]

I found Heathcliff and Cathy both unpleasant characters, so I didn't really get this one.

[Mary]

Shane wrote: "I found Heathcliff and Cathy both unpleasant characters, so I didn't really get this one."

I think they were supposed to be unpleasant.

[Shane]

Mary wrote: "Shane wrote: "I found Heathcliff and Cathy both unpleasant characters, so I didn't really get this one."

I think they were supposed to be unpleasant."

Indeed - and apparently many readers think of such characters as romantic, but I'm apparently not one of them, because I remember being surprised when reading WH and coming across these unpleasant folks that I couldn't imagine actually spending time with outside the pages of a book.

[Mary]

Shane wrote: "Indeed - and apparently many readers think of such characters as romantic, but I'm apparently not one of them, because I remember being surprised when reading WH and coming across these unpleasant folks that I couldn't imagine actually spending time with outside the pages of a book. ..."

I think the characters ARE romantic in the literary tradition of romanticism; not the popular defintion. Romanticism developed as a counterpoint to classicism with an emphasis on emotion and the detraction from conventional norms.

[Shane]

Mary wrote: "Shane wrote: "Indeed - and apparently many readers think of such characters as romantic, but I'm apparently not one of them, because I remember being surprised when reading WH and coming across the..."

My preconceptions were based more on the modern notion of 'romantic,' so reading this book was an eye-opener - and I remember that someone in my class had brought up the notion of Heathcliff as a sort of Byronesque romantic figure. Even so I still would have expected the characters to have some appealing or redeeming qualities, but apparently that something that's not required in this literary tradition? Then again, I suppose part of their appeal is that they dare to be so unappealing and outside the conventions of propriety?

[Mary]

Shane wrote: "My preconceptions were based more on the modern notion of 'romantic,' so reading this book was an eye-opener - and I remember that someone in my class had brought up the notion of Heathcliff as a sort of Byronesque romantic figure. Even so I still would have expected the characters to have some appealing or redeeming qualities, but apparently that something that's not required in this literary tradition? Then again, I suppose part of their appeal is that they dare to be so unappealing and outside the conventions of propriety? .."

Both Heathcliff and Cathy were extremely narcissistic. I think they did love one another, but they certainly loved themselves more. They became constant playmates in childhood and I do not think they ever outgrew that. Their "love" never matured and when thwarted, Heathcliff's becomes obsession laced with revenge. The one difference between the relationship of Cathy & Healthcliff and Catherine Linton and Hareton is the latter did not know each other as children, so when their friendship developed, it was a more mature friendship. Rather than relating like two squabbling children, their relationship bloomed into a healthy love.

[Farfished9]

Mary wrote: "Shane wrote: "My preconceptions were based more on the modern notion of 'romantic,' so reading this book was an eye-opener - and I remember that someone in my class had brought up the notion of Hea..."

I think that their relationship did not mature is an excellent point.

[Farfished9]

I take concepts of love to be an IDEA in this book...not a literal thing...not any kind of proof. That didn't seem to be the point, to me. Isn't this how life is? Don't we love upon a lark and hope?...wait...work and try for it to be physical proof of something? In life (if we are determined and lucky enough) we can learn over time--what love means...what love is...seem to have our proof.

The characters in this story did not live on, in their love, together. Nothing lasting past either as an individual ever came...nothing concrete of their togetherness (beyond an idea) was ever given to occur. They did not achieve love as we, in real life, work for love (beyond an idea). They did not even live on in our idea of love. They did not grow old together...loving one another...being to one another what real life shows love to be. Their love was an idea. It was a question. It was a question that the author did not know how to answer herself. I think she was trying to ask something...not to answer or tell something.

[Farfished9]

What if like...they did live on? What if they ran away together...left everything of their physical world and pasts behind them...and went on to live together (with nothing to keep them apart)?

Would they still love each other...end up being good to one another? Or would they go on relating to the other more out of acts which are primarily selfish and cause hurt.

What if they had a baby? Would this change them...and how? Would a mother be able to find the meaning of unconditional love, through her child? Would the father?

[Jettcatt]

I honestly don't think Cathy is capable of unconditional love, yes she loved heathcliffe but they could not be together cause cathy put so many conditions on him. I think she may be incapable of putting a child before herself, it breaks my heart when I think of what she did to heathcliffe. I blame her for Heathcliffe's harshness.

[Lucinda]

Mary wrote: "Shane wrote: "Indeed - and apparently many readers think of such characters as romantic, but I'm apparently not one of them, because I remember being surprised when reading WH and coming across the..."

Welcome, Shane. As you can see from the phrasing of my question, we've been into this a lot above, to the point where I changed my wording so that people would know that I knew of the two definitions!

The line I personally take is that the depiction of a character apart and somehow seen as 'above' conventional ethics was ugly in that he (it always was a he) could do morally reprehensible things (ie, abuse children,as Heathcliff does) and be excused by some readers as somehow unaccountable on the grounds of his 'apartness', that these things were being done n the name of 'disappointed love' 'disgust with humanity' etc.

It was also, of course, highly patriarchal, as was to be expected at the height of patriarchy. Can one imagine what readers would have said then - or indeed,now - about a woman who acts as Heathcliff does?

[Farfished9]

Jettcatt wrote: "I honestly don't think Cathy is capable of unconditional love, yes she loved heathcliffe but they could not be together cause cathy put so many conditions on him. I think she may be incapable of p..."

I am real unsure about whether or not either of these ppl could (A) parent a child in a healthy way...or (B) love a child unconditionally...

But...what if becomming a mother changed Cathy in that respect? A mother's love is said to be of an exceptional nature...Maybe she would be able to love her child unconditionally simply because she'd become a mother?

(PS I have no idea, myself)

[Farfished9]

Lucinda wrote: "Mary wrote: "Shane wrote: "Indeed - and apparently many readers think of such characters as romantic, but I'm apparently not one of them, because I remember being surprised when reading WH and comi..."

No guess as to what folks would have said back then about a female character acting as Heathcliff did (I'm too ignorant to guess)...

Today, I would guess it would be much like how people judge Heathcliff. Some would condemn and some would congratulate.

When a woman is so severely mistreated through out her life...and one day she finally snaps and kills her current abuser...I tend to be more empathetic and honestly...inside...I'm like...'YAY! Good for you! Kill the bastard...I wouldn't convict.'

On TV, I saw a woman who had 20 years worth of sickening abuse from her husband (as well as 20 years worth of valid places of support to turn and escape to) end up snapping one day and killing him in premeditated, cold blood (not out of immediate self defense). Although I know I should go by the law and convict (if I were on that jury)...ohh nooo...I don't think anyone could have ever convinced me to convict her...I just couldn't.