Wuthering Heights
discussion
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).
That doesn't seem right to me....somehow...but that's how I honestly feel.
Jettcatt wrote: "Farfished9 wrote: "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..."Yeah--you're probably right.
If 'IFs and BUTs wee candy and nuts...' hehe
What's that saying "People treat us the way we allow them to treat us"? I think Dr Phil uses this one a lot. I have always struggled with this suggestion. I would not convict her either for that would be a case of self defense I would think
I have mized feelings about that saying too. By the law (I think), it is only self defense if you do it outta imminent danger. My feelings tell me the same as you...it was self defense. I dunno.
If we were Cathy or Heathcliff's mother...would we be able to love them unconditionally?? (I can't stand either one).
I know a girl, a real girl that shot and cut up a man that molestered her for a long time to hide his body. She was convicted and the court let her off with no punishment. I understand the desperation (well actually that is not being fair to her cause I truly do not know what she went through I can only guess how I would feel) But I have grave concerns for capacity to actually chop up a body and bury the parts?
Like..."Go to your room and don't come out until you can be reasonably less sociopathic!!...No desert for you, Mister/Missy 'til you apologize for your heinous acts of selfish cruetly!"
Exactly what ever happened to "Turn the other cheek" or "Two wrongs don't make a right"....these days newer beliefs like "Don't get mad get even" like is no one prepared to take accountability for their own actions.....wow I have just come full circle cause when I first posted on this thread I blamed Cathy for Heathcliffe's behaviours.....OMG I have justified the very thing we are talking about.....Oh whoa is me I am pathetic..... Heatchcliff you now msut go to your room until you apoligise for your heinous acts of selfish cruelty!!!! I take it back I no longer like heatcliff or Cathy. :(
Jettcatt wrote: "Exactly what ever happened to "Turn the other cheek" or "Two wrongs don't make a right"....these days newer beliefs like "Don't get mad get even" like is no one prepared to take accountability for ...""Turn the other Cheek" or "Two Wrongs don't make a right" are great examples to give, I think...
So is what you are saying (about this girl you know..and of the situation)that you have compassion for her...do not wish to judge her...
but at the same time...your sense of morality and logic questions the actions she took, as well?
In my opionion, this is what a person who is seemingly capable of the the idea and then act of unconditional love feels. You do not agree with what she did and you question it very much...but you still allow a place in your heart for understanding and perhaps forgiveness.
??
Are such people, as these characters, lovable at all...let alone unconditionally?As a Christian (surely) I must love you...even if you're selfish...bad...terrible...sociopathic or evil. Or--must I, really?? Have I been conditioned to think that I must?
Am I truly capable of unconditional love, myself?
I cannot love these characters. I cannot love these people...at least, not unconditionally. Do I even want to? No--I don't. Should I want to??...
As a Christian--should I seek to accept and even love them as one flawed human being to another and, at the very least, gain some sense of perspective on the concept of unconditional love? No one said it would be an easy or enjoyable task...
What are the boundaries set by my human condition? What are my own, personal limitations? Where's that line and is it (should it be) the same for us all?
Why can you understand, love, and accept such terrible people...and I cannot? Are you a better person...a better Christian...a better soul? What do you know that I do not?..because I very nearly hate them. I don't care for them at all.
Does that make me really so different from those sociopathic jerks? It must because I am a good person and I do good things.
What does this all boil down to?
(I have no idea)
Jettcatt wrote: "I know a girl, a real girl that shot and cut up a man that molestered her for a long time to hide his body. She was convicted and the court let her off with no punishment. I understand the desper..."Yeah--that sounds right to me.
Hello, Jettcatt, and interesting comments, Farfished and Jettcatt. I know what you mean about these moral quandaries. I am a Goddess worshipper myself, but go along with the Christian belief that we should distinguish between a person and their evil acts, detesting the wrongdoing, but not the person (even though you have to stop them from continuing to do evil acts). I was very impressed with Graham Green's observation 'Hatred is a failure of imagination'.
I suppose one can apply that to characters in books, too.
So,I suppose, one should (if one aspires to spiritual enlightenment of whatever type) feel compassion for Heathcliff and such Byronic types, whilst seeing his acts as reprehensible.
I find it interesting that so many people regard Nelly Dean with contempt,because she does pity Heathcliff in his torment, whilst strongly objecting to his cruelties. I think she is meant to be instinctively more understanding than she is given credit for (clumsy sentence; too lazy to make it properly grammatical).
In fact, I have to say his and Cathy's histrionics often seem to border on the ludicrous; for instance, Cathy grinding her teeth 'as if she would grind them to splinters'in a temper tantrum and Heathcliff gnashing his with rage when he is locked out of Wuthering Heights by Hindley.
Shane 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..."What I'm getting from this is that Heathcliff is a sort of romantic figure in terms of what could have been - which seems like a sort of question of nature/nurture; at any rate, thanks for all your insight, and it makes me want to reread it again.
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 have a hard time thinking of Heathcliff or Cathy as admirable, and the best I could do when reading WH is to be glad that two rather unpleasant creatures were in a relationship with each other so that they didn't inflict themselves on anyone else.
Very true, Shane. Poor old Edgar Linton made no end of misery and trouble in allowing himself to fall in love with Cathy. To be fair to Cathy, though, I was discussing with CCose some way above how I believe Patsy Stoneman argues that Cathy wanted a 'non possessive' sort of love of the Shelleyian sort. Intriguing idea; for sure, she doesn't seem to be sexually jealous in the way Heathcliff is. I suppose this could only be hinted at in the Victorian era! I only read a preface that touched upon this, CCose is getting back to us at some point with his research, which led him to get in touch with Patsy Stoneman (now retired) direct.
I still consider "mythology" to be the highest level of any literary writing and believe that a totally different style has always been used to write it. Looking into the Greek and Roman mythology, nothing was ordinary, wrath, revenge and hatred were the driving power, among other things. Yet their messages have endured for millennia.
Wuthering Heights is the best mythology of our times and was quite unique when it was written. Some writers of today are trying to bring the style back, their books are among the best-sellers but is there any value to most of them?
When Greek and Roman mythology was written, they were real, people believed in those Gods and worshipped them. Today's style is just dealing with ghosts, magicians, sorcerers, etc... which are totally irrelevant.
Wuthreing Heights, on the other hand, is a masterpiece that pays homage to ‘”eternal and unconditional love”, something that had started to vanish and be replaced by loveless marriages that were based on personal interest.
Ruby wrote: "I still consider "mythology" to be the highest level of any literary writing and believe that a totally different style has always been used to write it. Looking into the Greek and Roman mythology..."
OooOoo...I like that perspective! No...I love it! =)
Welcome, Ruby. A very interesting idea. I assume you mean the love advocated by implication by Emily Bronte that has got nothing to do with the Heathcliff destructive sort which makes him cruel to people other than his love object, and more of 'loving kindness' and the Shelleyian ideal?Nelly Dean, much despised by critics, does actually show more loving kindness in her attitude towards Heathcliff than is generally acknowledged.
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 was thinking exactly the same thing. You see this every day in real life. For some reason a lot of women are attracted to JA's...on reflection a lot of men are too.
If you look at Catherine she was just the female version of him. Cruelty in different forms, stubborn to the point of hurting herself, etc.
I absolutely love this novel but agree that Heathcliff is a very objectionable character. What makes him so attractive to females is that the idea of a man being completely obsessed by us is, in the abstract, very appealing. In reality, we would probably take out a restraining order against him.!
Interesting, however, that it is not actually Heathcliff himself who is directly responsible for the downfall of the other characters so much as their own flaws. It is his enjoyment of their destruction that makes him so repugnant.
I saw the film before reading the book and have to say i preferred it in some ways to the book. The intensity of the older Catherine s relationship with Heathcliff is compelling and much of this intensity is lacking in the relationships of the younger characters, which is probably why the film ignores much of the later events.
Interesting, however, that it is not actually Heathcliff himself who is directly responsible for the downfall of the other characters so much as their own flaws. It is his enjoyment of their destruction that makes him so repugnant.
I saw the film before reading the book and have to say i preferred it in some ways to the book. The intensity of the older Catherine s relationship with Heathcliff is compelling and much of this intensity is lacking in the relationships of the younger characters, which is probably why the film ignores much of the later events.
Welcome, Roma and Fawls. I'd say Heathcliff preys upon the weaknesses of the others in an almost ghoul like way. A malign fate seems almost to deliver them into his hands. A critic pointed out somewhere that in fact, he would have gone far outside the law, even as it then was in the UK, and wouldn't be able to get hold of the Linton's property quite so easily.
I only saw one rather silly old film of the book, and switched off after too much 'Oh, Cathy' 'Oh, Heathcliff'-ing.
I think because Heathcliff does such awful things could have put off film makers from following the plot in the book, too.
I agree that though the coming together of the second generation is meant to put things right, it doesn't, somehow. I think maybe because Heathcliff dies unrepentant; that gives a cold, bleak feel to things.As I say above, Emily Bronte seemed to have her own reasons for wishing to demonstrate a Gothic, unrepentant sinner.
Lucinda,I meant to quote you in my previous comment, but apparently haven't quite figured Goodreads citation method out.
At any rate, I think there is a sort of modern day Heathcliff in romantic fiction with the 'charming rake' who usually has his edges smoothed out by a 'good woman,' (Tom Hanks in You've Got Mail). And perhaps in the context of when this was written, being a bully or horrible to kids was seen as the equivalent of being a self-absorbed Capitalist who crushes small businesses gleefully?
I'm sort of kidding, but then again at the very least I am intrigued and wondering about the mores and values of the society in which this was written - I hadn't really thought about it that much until this post, so thanks much!
Shane
Maybe the author was digusted with people and how they behave...with the popular concept of love...the christianly reinforcement of tolerance and forgiveness.What if she was like...let's see how a rediculously frustrating I can make the the characters and relationships in this story...let's see how disgustinf and unappealing and unforgivable I can make them...
And lets see what everyone has to say about it...
What if this story was set in conditions of abject poverty? What if all the characters were extremely poor with pox ridden faces and they smelled like their fish gutting jobs??What if there were no eerily majestic architectural structures around to set the mood...no pretty dresses...no free and idle time available for such drama and trouble making...no fortunes to be stolen or had...
I don't know if people would think it was so romantic then
I'm talking poor man...Maybe this wasn't the glittering picture of society we see in other stories, but dusty, neglected, or fading privilege is still privilege...in perspective...
Lol, Shane! Good points about poverty adding squalor to moral squalor, Farfished. In fact, Heathcliff is described as an unscrupulous capitalist equivalent in the pre industrial society it's set in - 'a cruel hard landlord'.
These notions have intrigued me for a couple of decades, and I think that the fact that so few critics in the past seem to have given sufficient weight to them says something about how a 'romantic' (in either sense) preconception of a character can warp judgement of him (only think of Eugene Onegin and how his murder of Lensky is overlooked).
From reading Victorian literature one doesn't get the impression anybody thought it was acceptable in any character portrayed as being sympathetic to bully women and kids,though for sure it went on in real life, in deprived households obviously and subtly in wealthier ones.
The attitude of many Victorian men towards abuse of women and children in fact reminds me of a man I saw interviewed on television who was angry that the conditions of his parole included telling his girlfriend that he had been convicted of rape - he said he wasn't 'really' a rapist as he'd only done it once...I've heard of wife beaters who assert the same thing. It's those other guys who are the real ones...
Funny you should mention it about that rake having his corners knocked off, as my own protagonist from the days of the French Revolutiona, Emile Dubois, is a comic depiction of a rake who gets more than he bargains for in a 'Miss Goody Two Shoes'...I would certainly regard it as a dismally regressive step if a woman writer depicted it as being acceptable in a protagonist to do things like lock his pregnant wife out of his bedroom and take his spite out on his enemy's small son (and his own), because he was disappointed in love!
The position of women in this book is certainly depicted as realisticlly imprisioned and unenviable, too, just as much as in Charlotte Bronte's
I don't think a Byronian type can be as mean-spirited as Heathcliff. A romantic hero can bring pain and suffering upon others but there are limits to how low he can stoop. He won't rob a child or beat up a woman. But that's what Heathliff did - deprived his son of life and his daughter-in-law of her inheritance and human dignity. He preyed on other people's weaknesses and watched their suffering with undisguised contempt. He is a classical monster, psychologically speaking, - a typical tyrant: abused as a child, abusive as an adult. He tortured his wife, his son, and the daughter of the only woman he loved.When Heathcliff calls Cathy Jr. filthy names and tries to beat her - knowing full well he stole her land and her money - he's simply disgusting. Not a trace of nobility about him: a despicable, filthy, barely human lowlife.
Interesting points, Alex,and I certainly agree with you that I can't see Byronic types being violent to women and children. As you can see from my own commments, while I feel sorry for such a tormented being as Heathcliff, I think what he does is contemptible. I was very interested to read that it seems in her poetry Emily Bronte was intrigued as to the fate of unrepentant, Gothic type characters and perhaps this grim scenario was what she was trying to portray.
Unfortunately I have not read all of her poems closely. I am fond of "Remembrance," on living in a world which one's only love has long left. I am familiar with "No coward soul is mine," "Often rebuked, yet always back returning," "The Philosopher," and "High waving heather," but I don't recall anything hinting at a character like Heathcliff after his return. He does not seek solitude like Manfred. He does not argue with God like Cain. He becomes a household tyrant of a rather ungentlemanly kind, almost Dickensian in his nastiness. I suspect that he looks forward to Dostoevsky's characters in his mental distress and his sadistic attitudes.On top of this, what do you make of Catherine's and Heathcliff's fasting?
You've probably read as many as me, Alex, and I haven't come across it either, it was some comment by a critic I mention above - Rod something, can't find it now, a book on Wuthering Heights, a series of essays. It's on Goodreads, I know. I didn't like his book particularly, as he seemed to fall over backwards to excuse Heathcliff, but he did make that point about finding references to this tormented, unrepentant soul in her poetry, presumably in obscure bits.I agree about a domestic tyant, there is something almost bathetic, as I think I have said on the thread, about the contrast between Heathcliff's 'Byronic' posturings and his prosaic existence.
Although a 'cruel hard landlord' he is so mean and permits himself so few pleasures that he eats porridge for dinner, although he must have put some money by from oppressing his tenants. He even begrudes visitors a cup of tea, so that the younger Cathy is scared to give one to Lockwood without his permission.
The starvation thing - hmm. Perhaps a bit like a hunger strike on her part, believing herself cruelly treated? On his, I suppose either his obsession had got to the point where he couldn't be bothered so much as keeping himself alive any more, or if one interprets it supernaturally, the ghost wouldn't let him eat (goodness knows why the older Cathy would want the company of a man who'd been so brutal to her daughter, but there we are).
He is a sad character, though, precisely because he has allowed himself to become what he has and do what he does. I think Nelly Dean is misjudged, in that she is kind enough to pity him as a 'poor suffering fellow creature' even in the depth of his excesses, whereas many critics seem to despise her.
I've only read 'Crime and Punishment' by Dostoevsky.
Does he write about domestic tyrants, that's interesting?
Lol, Brooke, welcome back. As a character said in a book I read once, 'Pray elucidate'...
Joining in very late but wanted to comment on the original post. In Emily's day what exactly was a Byronic hero? The term gets shunted about a good deal nowadays but I think we're forgetting the real facts of Byron's life that were common currency at least in gossip. On the one hand many of Byron's protagonists were fixed ideals of all-consuming brooding love for a woman. But Byron himself shattered this idea of himself with his disastrous marriage, when it came out he was half-insane, had an incestuous affair with his half-sister who out of anyone can only be called his all-consuming love, and physically abused his gently-reared aristocratic wife Arabella who left him within a year. The Brontes were all obsessed with Byron, they read extensively, they would have known both the poetic persona and the scurrilous but true rumours. Heathcliff's to me is very much an amalgam of these jarring incongruities, with of course all the original imaginings of Bronte thrown into the mix.
Intriguing post, Barbery. I have often thought what an influence Byron's real life and his hero projections and the whole Gothic tradition had on the Brontes.
The book, although a masterpiece, can't be viewed as romantic at all, Heathcliff and Cathy both appear to be unbalanced; they're not happy together, yet they're miserable apart.
it's his ability to love violently, fully, and completely, that makes him lovable and attractive and a hero.
Welcome, belatedly, to the discussion, S and Incitanemxx. S, I agree.
Incitaemxx 'Incite',eh? Is this name indicative?
Not sure if that isn't said slightly tongue in cheek? I don't think anyone else has been quite so uncritical of Heathcliff so far on this thread, though many are prepared to overlook his atrocities on the grounds that he is half out of his mind in his disappointed, obsessive love for Catherine.
Well, I love a laugh. Perhaps I should start a thread, 'Heathcliff should be a role model for all men?'
Seriously, and the topic of men (even in fiction) who abuse women is serious enough - it is Heathcliff's inability to love that makes him unlovable, unattractive, and anything but a hero, along with his unfortunate habit of bullying women and children. As I am sure you have ploughed through the rest of the thread, you'll know my view that Emily Bronte wished to portray a sadly distorted personality to arouse our compassion and also our horror, being fascinated by the concept of the spiritual fate of the unrepentant evil doer.
I do think women readers have to be very careful of elevating a male character who is abusive towards women - let alone children - into a hero.
Thanks, Jamie! I find it quite disturbing that so many women readers particularly seem to admire Heathcliff- as if his ill treatment of Isabella, the younger Cathy, etc, somehow doesn't matter because of his supposed deep love for Cathy.
Jamie, That is my own view on how things are with feminism at the moment, especially with this appalling resurgence of stories appealing to rape fantasies, actually defended by some feminists (steam bursts from ears).Although in geekish determination to try and get to grips with the story fully I read it three times over the years, ha, ha, while I know that Cathy says when dying that Heathcliff and Edgar have both destroyed her, and repeats this when she and Heathcliff have that supposedly romantic meeting just before the birth of the younger Cathy, I don't remember the exact words.
That's a fascinating insight about the role of mental illness, as Heathcliff, along with many Byronic characters certainly seems to have a total lack of conscience, and his obsession with Cathy and obtaining revenge on those who separated them (and their descendants) comprises his motivation in the book.
When I noted that one critic noted Emile Bronte's fascination in her poems with the spiritual fate of the 'unrepentant sinner' that is, of course, a spiritual take on being intrigued with the mental state of the psychopath, perhaps?
On a lighter note, he is portrayed as being very mean, as when they have porridge for dinner. That might make sense if he wasn't wealthy and 'a cruel hard landlord'...
Even though Heathcliff and Cathy are the main characters, I often wonder how the other characters played into the actions that Heathcliff and Cathy had done.
Interesting point, Sheila. Hindley's brutal treatment is partly responsible for Heathcliff's terrible actions, as the elder Mr Earnshaw's favouring Heathcliff over Hindley when they are boys provokes Hindley's ill treatment of Heathcliff, etc etc. Where I differ from many others, is that I don't think Heathcliff's brutality can be excused by this, though it can be explained. His actions are disgusting - but of course, the reader ought to be sorry for the poor damaged man (though I have to feel more for his victims). I think Nelly Dean's attitude towards him is quite sensible, and as a character she has been largely unfairly treated by the critics (though I don't agree with her patriarchal views on marriage).
I read an interesting blog recently, where the writer argued that almost all critics and readers tend to underestimate Isabella, too. I tend to agree.
I agree Lucinda. Never underestimate a supporting character. Isabella was too much of a instigator even as a child to be not noticed. And without her, Cathy's character might not of fully blossomed.
Erm I am not too sure you understood the term Byronic at all. As to the Romantic hero bit I thought he was more classified as the Antihero and rarely in the romantic sense. The Byronic hero is not suppose to be a peachy character, he is generally abrasive. It is the allure in spite of this that draws the romantic theme
Ariel wrote: "Erm I am not too sure you understood the term Byronic at all. As to the Romantic hero bit I thought he was more classified as the Antihero and rarely in the romantic sense. The Byronic hero is not ..."That is a little presumptious, isn't it, Ariel? I won't say rude. I do believe in being civil in these discussions. I understand the term very well, though my interpretations may be different from yours.The fact that the Byronic hero is not meant to be sweet and nice is so blatantly obvious that I scarcely thought it worth mentioning - but he isn't usually depicted as bullying women and children, either. That is a great deal worse than being abrasive. There is no allure in that.
Also, any number of critics do classify Heathcliff's and Cathy's obsession as romantic in every sense, and I am puzzled as to how you have missed these in your researches, or my comments in this thread about the nature of Byronic heroes. As I have said many times before, I am interested in the theory that Emily Bronte was fascinated by the spiritual fate of the unrepentant, Byronic character.
I actually wrote a paper on this--about how "romantic" novels are not so romantic and how legacies on the classics can be very misleading. I don't see Heathcliff as a tragic, byronic, or anti hero. He's just a brooding and dark man with a very sad past who tried his hardest to make himself into something and earn what he wanted, and when he couldn't, he resorted to violence and deceit to get it.
An interesting and novel take on the theme, Jacquelyn. But like all people who embrace brutality with those weaker than themselves, he becomes far worse than just someone brooding and dark. He does monstrous things and can only take delight in making 'the worms writhe'; he has no pleasure in life but to make others connected with his original enemies suffer - he can't even enjoy a good meal.
Jacquelyn yes indeed that is an interesting look. Although it may look like Heathcliff is a tormented soul, I think what was, turns into something that is more monstrous.I see it that the two of them were just circling each other constantly that it just down right dirty.
Intriguing insights, Cemre. For sure you can see echoes of all those themes in the book. Someone on here made a fascinating comment. How would readers react to a WOMAN who acted as Heathcliff does (presumably a big one skilled in brawling).
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Sense and Sensibility (other topics)
Wuthering Heights (other topics)
Beauty and the Beast (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
More...
Anne Rice (other topics)
Stella Gibbons (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Letters from a War Zone (other topics)Sense and Sensibility (other topics)
Wuthering Heights (other topics)
Beauty and the Beast (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Emily Brontë (other topics)Anne Rice (other topics)
Stella Gibbons (other topics)
That is a big What If? I'm fairly certain that we all know women that have had a child and the light bulb moment that magically turns a women into an instant loving unconditional loving mother has never happened. Plenty of women should never be mothers and I m fairly certain Cathy would be one of those.