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).
Emma, I am so glad you were able to transcend the abuse you suffered. I agree a person abused as a child doesn't need to become an abuser, given a lot of self awareness and courage. As you can see from my posts above, I am frankly puzzled how readers find Heathcliff's obsession with Cathy romantic (she is a great deal less possessive and he resents this) or be anything but dismayed by his abuse of women and children particularly. I do feel sorry for the character,just as Nelly Dean (her kindness is often underestimated, I think, as I've said before) does, but his actions are vile.
I agree about Byronic heroes, too. One critic suggested that EB was teasing the reader - by making Heathcliff look the part of a hero and do terrible things.
That is an interesting theory. I've had many different ideas about what the book was meant to convey. Was it a cautionary tale about unbridled passion? Was it meant to ridicule Victorian society? Or perhaps, Heathcliff was meant to represent the monster in all of us. Look at what we could become if we let passion, hate, and vengeance become the focus of our existence. We all have this demon lurking inside of us, what would happen if we let him out and let our basest desires control us. I think Heathcliff kind of personifies a Nietzsche quote I love, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."So many possibilities. That is what I love about literature.
Lucinda wrote: "Emma, I am so glad you were able to transcend the abuse you suffered."Thank you.
Cemre wrote: "Nietzsche quote is excellent by the way and summarizes Heathcliff perfectly."Again, interesting points, Cemre. I never could take to Nietzsche myself, but some of his insights are fascinating.
I take your point about there shouldn't be simplistic good/bad divides in interpreting characters inliterature, but I have to say that I think Heathcliff's viciousness has to be seen as evil - without hating the character - or we are in danger of giving way to a sort of flaccid refusal to take a moral standpoint of speaking out against evil and abuse,even in fictitious situations, and in seeing it for what it is.
As a post 1980's feminist myself and (I hope a lot, like myself, still oppose patriarchy) I see his abuse of women and and children as totally patriarchal. In fact he says to Cathy, doesn't he, that he won't take out what he sees as her ill treatment of him on her, but on those weaker than himself? 'The worms writhe' etc, etc.
Cathy has ironically rendered herself powerless by marrying a man who is as controlling, in his way, as Heathcliff, for all her grand schemes she expresses to Nelly before her marriage. I was interterested by the interpretation of Patsy Stoneman that she wanted some form of non possessive relationship with both, which EB couldn't state directly without totally horrifying the Victorian public.
While I say one must distinguish between the 'tormented fellow creature' and his dreadful acts, I do think one must see the horror of those acts and the misery they cause as a moral agent (even if one motivated by relativistic morality).
He did seem to have been very damaged by his life as a street urchin as a child. It's interesting that Nelly comments that he showed no affection for old Mr Earnshaw, who doted on him, and he uses that partiality to use against Hindley, which causes a lot of the latter's hatred and later abuse of him. It's true he has a limited affection for Nelly.
I think Rod Mengham, for instance, is typical of some critics who go out of their way to excuse Heathcliff's barbarities, though to be fair, he admits that he often acts brutally.
Where did you get the idea that I'm justifying Heathcliff's behaviour? He surely is evil . But critics mostly see him as a supernatural evil being and they justify HİNDLEY's behaviours . I'm sure that feminist critics would be imperessed by a dark skinned woman who managed to have two estates in 18th century England and does this by manipulating laws and seducing men. She would be a dark skinned (!) Scarlett O'Hara albeit more abusive and much less sacrificing . Romanticizing Heathcliff is something seen with only 16 years old teenage girls and male Marxist critics. As an adult he surely is evil , and his supposed love for Cathy is a pathetic obsession, but saying that was evil from the beginning (critics does that ) boarders on racism.
Sorry for my grammar
I haven't read Rod Mengham. The ones ı read were pretty unforgiving to Heathcliff
But he cried to Mr Earnshaw''s death . His talk about heaven with Cathy afterwards was probably the sweetest moment in the book .
People show horse incident as a proof that he was evil from the beginning but he was 9-10 years old and Hindley was like 15-16.He gets the horse but he's severely beaten by Hindley and he doesn't say that to Mr Earnshaw
Cemre, for sure I'm not saying that you justify Heathcliff's behaviour, but I can see that some critics who write against a simplistic good/evil divide are in danger of dropping into a trap of justifying brutality. I'm rather horrified that any present day Marxist critic, male or otherwise, would take that line.Lol, I wish it was only sixteen year old girls who think that Heathcliff is romantic, but a number of women readers on this thread and elsewhere, who are a long way from sixteen seem to find him so! I find that disconcerting. Many seem to identify with Cathy rather than Isabella and not see them both as victims.
I agree, I can't believe people start out evil exactly,but unfortunately there are, for instance, psychopaths from all races. The evidence seems inconclusive about how far they are born that way.
Of course, EB never says how dark Heathcliff is, and when we think about it, many people of Irish descent, for instance, are very dark and he does come from Liverpool, where a huge portion of the population are Irish. Of course, as it's a port he might come from anywhere...
I'm interested that the critics you read take an unforgiving view of him, whereas I thought the (mainly women, unfortunately) ones I read were too given to excusing his later cruelty to their own sex, and to children, and some speak highly uncritically of the 'love' between Cathy and Heathcliff, which I think you rightly term an unhealthy obsession.The horse incident seems to show both in a nasty light - Hindley as a bully and Heathcliff as determined to get the horse whether it's fair or not.It's weird - he threatens to inform on Hindley at the beginning of the episode as a means of getting the horse, if I remember rightly, and then doesn't after the attack because he's got the horse. You're right, though, he does shed tears at the death of Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw appears to have been a complete fool in his treatment of the two boys.
Well ı agree with your views actually . Heathcliff is a psycopath when ı think about it . But ı still think he was redeemble as a child . Joyce Carol Oates is one of those critics ( it's not hard to see why) which is a pity because her article is excellent otherwise.And my favourite female character in the book is Isabella (critics are too harsh on her, including Joyce Carol Oates who thinks she's a masochist) Even feminist critics think that Cathy(s) is a victim of patriarchy and indeed Edgar is neglectful but hers is nothing compared to Isabella's situation.Personally ı find Cathy spoilt whereas Isabella is a badass. "Romanticising" is not quite the right word for the male Marxist critics. But they tend to excuse some of his behaviours . Seeing Heathcliff as a symbol for Cathy's dark side is quite popular among the critics . But ı don't agree with that. Personally ı find Cathy to be as wild as Heathcliff if not more. (Heathcliff is more violent but Catherine is wilder . They're different things) Critics say that Cathy has a double personality: Heathcliff and Edgar. The problem is we never see her Edgar side. People would say that Heathcliff is a psycopath if he were a blond guy but they wouldn't call "demon", "creature" , " inhuman" and things like that . The dehumanization Heathcliff receives unfortunately seems to have more to do with him not having a surname , his origins and his " gibberish" rather than his violent actions. I don't think that Heathcliff is " inhumanly evil ." I don't know where these critics live but in the world that there are many people like Heathcliff . As for females romanticising Heathcliff , I'm not one of them , but ı understand this reaction . As ı stated before WH is like a fairy tale , and easy to see their "ohh so spiritual bond" as true love . And WH is a passionate book. What they fail to understand is ı think , it's a passionate hate story of a man
Again sorry for my grammar mistakes .
A female critic from my country said that the love between Cathy and Heathcliff doesn't feel like unhealthy because they're too " natural " and their love feels "otherworldly" . I don't agree with that statement but it's interesting .
Again, fascinating points, Cemre. I will certainly read the Joyce Carol Oates criticism. I wonder if people wouldn't see him as demonic if he were fair haired? I always picture Lucifer as fair, lol, not as if I believe in the Devil, but yes, I don't think he is meant to be a demon (though Charlotte Bronte seemed to think he would be without the humanising mild affection for Hareton and for Nelly). I always liked Isabella too - and agree she is underestimated by the critics, and only seen as a victim, and some even seem to have taken the line that Heathcliff's contempt for her is understandable.
Cathy I've always had mixed feelings about, I agree she's selfish, not exactly spoilt as I see it as nobody indulges her, but self indulgent.
I agree, in a world where there are paedphiles and brutal rapists, massacres etc, Heathcliff's evil is not outstanding enough to make him something supernatural.
On the latter point, I think people forget that EB was after all a Victorian woman, unmarried, who almost certainly had to live a celibate life, and this made her understanding of sexuality limited, even if her notions may have been advanced. I would have thought. I never thought the last meeting between the heavily pregnant Cathy and Heathcliff realistic, somehow.
I do think it's awful the way some readers seem to think that Heathcliff's abuse of Isabella particularly somehow matters less than his passion for Cathy.
Yes , as much as ı adore WH , it's pretty sexless.
I often think that Cathy was not " in love " with Heathcliff . Sure she was obsessed with him but ı think she saw him as a representation of her childhood . Her half savage , hardy and free days . Heathcliff was her rebellion against the males who had power over him . What she misunderstood is Heathcliff was just an another male who wanted posess her . He was wild and rebellious as a child but as an adult he did everything for money and he seemed perfectly well with " human " laws as long as they suit his plans .
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 just want to say that I found this comment / review really interesting and well written... it made me think about my understanding of the characters differently. And this is definitely worth a thank you. So thank you.
Emma
I totally get the point of most of the comments, about falling in love with the wrong guy, or women feeling attracted to guys - **wholes - like that. But in a very brief, concise way, I believe that people who likes Heathcliff are people who love a lost cause, you know .. that friend that you know their life is a mess and you try to help? that girl who has an attachment for bullies and still you as the cute guy try to help her? We all know that there are people who are a lost cause, and that there are people as well, who LOVE TO HELP lost causes. See, as reading the book is inevitable to hope that Heathcliff will change at the end, that something will happen and will change his perspective, you go the whole book thinking, at the end, love will triumph. But is it the story really about love or just inevitability?
These are fascinating comments, everyone, and Emma, thank you for your kind words about my review. I agree with all the comments (particularly about my review, lol!). I felt a tremendous sense of let down at the end because Heathcliff never saw how cruel he had been, was never sorry - love and forgiveness truimphs through Hareton and the younger Cathy, but for the older generation, it certainly doesn't. I was really disapponted that Heathcliff rejects Nelly's spritual advice at the end. True, it's quite orthodox (for someone whom Lockwood called 'hetrodox') but it does point out how wrongly he has lived, and he says he hasn't wronged anyone (and he has destroyed even Cathy, whom he professes to love).
I think Heathcliff's lack of redemption is what makes the story original and memorable. I wouldn't want a psycopath like Heathcliff to find redemption at the end , ı've seen it a lot and it would be unrealistic. And Emily Bronte doesn't judge any of her characters . We don't know what she thinks about her characters. We don't even know that the marriage of Cathy and Hareton was meant to be a positive thing . Some thinks that it was a cynical ending . We don't know if she took the side of Edgar or Heathcliff . The only character that she openly condemns is Joseph , even Linton Heathcliff was pitiable. By the way , what do you say about my theory about Cathy? That she wasn't in love with Heathcliff and saw him as a representation of her childhood ?
I partly agree with you Jamie. The critics who thought of Heathcliff as a representation of freedom and wilderness have always made me wonder. The man really liked to own things . His first sentence in the book was about how Thrushcross Grange was his ( lie). His first known action as a child was fighting with Hindley for the horse. He liked to see people as his property. " My bonny lad , you're mine" he called his son his property... Even his " ı can't live without MY soul " tyrad wasn't wholly innocent. " I am Heathcliff " may sound narcissistic, but it has got an honesty in it that Heathcliff lacked. His passion had its limits too . Remember that he was willing leave Cathy in her deathbed , just because he was afraid that Edgar was coming back from church. He was afraid of Edgar of as much as Edgar was afraid of him. This love triangle sometimes reminds me of Rashamon. Where The Woman made a heartfelt speech about how the men who wanted her ( her husband and her rapist , no less!) were weaker than her.
" My bonny lad " speech was of course about Hareton , not Linton. But he also called Linton his property .
Again, what fascinating comments. I can't believe, myself, though my attitude towards spiritual matters isn't sentimental - that the ending is intended to be cynical, though for sure the love affair between the young people is sentimentally depicted - I think that is a rather sad reflection on the author's lack of experience in this area rather than cynicism myself. She's writing a bit below her usual strength there.
She does 'follow through' (as James N Frey calls it) wonderfully, that is, depict her envisaged ending for the story of the first generation at least in all its tragedy ( slightly off topic, I know how difficult that is; in my last book I killed off the protagonist and it was very difficult but any other ending would have been weak).
For sure the author doesn't 'judge' the characters in a naive way, but I think regarding cruelty and being cut off from love, she does portray what happens to Heathcliff, who is of course,crueler and more dedicated to destruction and hatred than anybody in the book, taking as he does this dismal stand of dedicating his life to revenge, torture of his so called enemies, and hatred. I have no doubt she didn't believe in a Christian hell any more than I do (it is grimly comic how Joseph wants to 'cut a caper about the room' on finding him dead, lol, but that's irrelevant to this comment).
I think that in love triangles the men are always more involved with each other than the woman. In fact, I saw a film once where the woman in question seemed to have no personality or individual thoughts at all and I didn't know if this was intentional, but as a comment on partriarchal rivalry and what's really at the basis of it, I found it fascinating.
Heathcliff is passionately emotionally bound up with Edgar, as Edgar is with him, more so than Cathy is, in a way. She doesn't understand that she's meant to be passive in this struggle.
I so agree about Heathcliff being acquisitive; it made me laugh when I read naive descriptions of him as a champion of the dispossessed, when he is described as becoming 'a cruel hard landlord'.
I wasn't meaning what you said when ı said " cynical" . I read a fascinating essay called " The Disease and Dispossesion in Wuthering Heights " , it was probably the best thing ı've read about WH ( you can find it in internet , google books though some pages are missing). Well it was a feminist essay and the writer argued that after showing the bad things happenned to Cathy and Isabella in their marriages , Emily was being cynical by marrying Cathy 2 . She mentioned a poem of her with a similar theme but ı don't remember its name. I know that it doesn't sound very convincing , but the writer made it sound convincing , like every good essay writer does.
I don't think that Hareton and Cathy's relationship was badly written. Yes it was a bit quick. And yes Bronte is at her best when she describes hatred and passion. Yes their relationship was overshadowed by Heathcliff's monomania. But she still did a good job. I mean who did want a 100 pages long relationship development for Hareton and Cathy ? It was good in the way it was.
What was the movie you mentioned ? Was Ben Stiller in it ?
Or was it the one with Reese Witherspoon ?
I wouldn't say the relationship was badly written either, more not Emily Bronte at full strength. It was sweet, for sure, and young Cathy shows maturity in not letting her understandable disgust with Heathcliff become an issue between them, which could have ruined things. I've only seen one film version - or a bit of one, an old one, so bad I turned it off a quarter of the way through, so maybe it was someone else who mentioned a good film version?
About the male weakness, that is interesting...
No I was talking about the movie you mentioned. The one that the woman didn't have personality. For WH 1998 version was okay. There is also a very weird and inaccurate Japanese version of WH. It's completely different from the novel , but I still recommend it.
1998 version made Heathcliff worse
Ah, that one! I wish I remembered the name of the dreadful thing - it was some very 1970's type film shown on television late at night. I couldn't work out if they knew how boring the woman the men were battling for was, or whether it was intentional. As it was very macho - all about their trying to drive each other off the road - I think the scriptwriters etc didn't think about her personality at all. In the end she gets fed up with the race and goes off with a third man, some biker - naturally, the chances of her showing any independence were negligible. Japanese version of WH could be amusing - the Inverse of a Tea Ceremony in that opening chapter, for instance...So the 1998 version didn't make Heathcliff out as the victim? I heard a lot tend to play down his cruelties later on.
I think I'll watch that 1998 film version, then, Cemre, it sounds intriguing!
Interesting point, Jamie. I vaguely remember reading that he was very weird, anyway, bad tempered and dictatorial, and that Elizabeth Gaskell, who met him through Charlotte, found him next to impossible. Their 'Aunt Bramwell', who brought them up, was, I believe, a fundamentalist religious fanatic like Joseph in WH. Not a cosy household, by any means.
@Jamie Lynn, Jane Eyre is great, much different from the movies. Villette is also very good, but make sure you have a good french-english dictionary if you don't speak the language. I find Anne to be the most interesting Bronte. Compare The Tenant of Wildfell Hall to Wuthering Heights and even Jane Eyre and you find a much much different attitude towards abuse and male ownership. She was definitely the feminist of the family. Makes me wonder why. I also really enjoyed Agnes Gray, although it's a lot more lighthearted than most Bronte works.
This is fascinating, Emma and Jamie, because I think Anne Bronte is massively underestimated. Critics tend to be dismissive of 'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall', but I don't see why. It does depict a woman under the dreadful ownership of an immoral man, not quite as bad as Heathcliff, but bad enough. I like her spiritual views, too; very enlightened.
I think you may well find them fascinating, Jamie. I haven't read all of Charlotte's, 'Jane Eyre' and 'Villette'. In 'Villette' the hero is ridiculously sexist, truly awful, and yet somehow I found him sweet. I don't understand it. He's very honourable, though, according to his patriarchal way of looking at things.
Lol, Jamie,off topic I bought a book for a friend of mine which was full of old advertisements from the mid twentieth century. One from approx 1960 depicted a man spanking his wife's bottom (lots of frilly petticoats and waving legs and high heels) for not buying him the 'right coffee'. Purile beyond belief!
To continue the off topic for just another second, I've been having a conversation somewhere else with a woman who is hating fiercely on a female TV show character who had sex with the male main character, who is married w/children. I keep pointing out that although I don't like this other woman, the man is more to blame for the infidelity than this other woman is, because it's the man who made the commitment to his wife. The man's betrayal is the greater betrayal. (Obviously.) But this woman (and I've noticed many women) wants or needs to find a way to excuse men when they are unfaithful, and blame only the other women. (Like she tied him up or something) and is full of excuses and sympathy for the married man's suffering. I'm so tired of this phenomenon. I've also noticed the condemnation is quite different when a married woman is unfaithful. I'm old enough to remember the days when divorced mothers were bashed over the head with their inability to raise children without a man to help, and endured all kinds of dire warnings.
Congratulations on surviving all that negative criticism! I had hoped that we had progressed since those days, but I have come across a couple of recent phenomena that worry me; one is of some women insisting that rape fantasies aren't regressive; the other is the way women are pressurised to look a certain, artificial way seems really to have made a comeback compared to a few years back.Sounds infuriating about that Blaming the Women stuff. I think this softness on male characters in fiction is very tiresome, and one of the reasons (to bring things back full circle) why many women readers make excuses for Heathcliff. Pitying him is one thing; regarding him as anything but a sadly distorted character is quite another.
Excellent how you did that... ha! I must read The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.
Rebecca - talk about synchronicity, I was just about to email you. I found 'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall' fascinating; Anne Bronte wrote it because she'd been so horrified at Bramwell's descent into alcoholism.
I can't bring myself to read 'Fifty Shades'either. Does he actually rape her? If he does, it's disgusting that so many women readers are quite open about enjoying it. I've often ranted about a novel called, I think, 'Devil's Cub' by the historical romance writer Georgette Heyer I read at fourteen where the hero tries to rape the heroine at one point and she's happy to marry him later on. I didn't know that was meant to be rape in 'Gone with the Wind'. Ages since I read that book - I was fifteen,I think,- but it was so ambiguously phrased I thought he just rushed upstairs with her and she went along with it being in the mood. If it was rape, it's truly horrible that she seems to have fallen in love with him that night. Come to think of it, I do remember it said something about him 'handling her roughly and her revelling in it'.
Well, I feel sorry for Heathcliff in the way that Nelly Dean does (I think she's often the spokesperson for humane values in the story, and underestimated) 'Poor, tormented fellow creature' and because he allows himself to become such a monster. He does have a choice not to become an abuser hismelf, as a reader who posted on here who was abused herself points out. I've only seen part of some old film version of Wuthering Heights - it was full of silly romantic gasps and i turned it off about a third of the way through! I do get the impression from people who've seen various film versions that they play down his brutality. I've always assumed he probably sexually abused Isabella, and that's behind her words when she asks Nelly if he's human or demonic?
Oh dear, I so agree about one steps forward and three steps back for feminism (broods gloomily, after the manner of a Byronic Heroine)...
I can't bring myself to read or even care about 50 Shades of Grey
Didn't notice that, Jamie. How many films of WH have there been, if any, which show Heathcliff as unromantic? Sheila,lol,I wish I didn't care about the implications of the success of 'Fifty Shades'!
Lucinda: as I've mentioned in the past, I have most of these movies. This is the one where Heathcliff is portrayed as, I suspect, he was meant to be portrayed by the author. Robert Cavanah is the actor playing Heathcliff. http://www.amazon.com/Wuthering-Heigh...
I agree. I found Heathcliff to be a brute almost......I saw nothing romantic about him and was very surprised by his depiction in this book.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Some WH movies are listed on this thread.https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/..."
Oh apparently they've come out with a "new" WH movie that I wasn't familiar with. (I popped over to look at the Goodreads list). It may be better (although the people over there don't seem to think much of it.) I have not seen it so I can't say.
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)
I find it a bit offensive that some people seem to think that his mistreatment as a child explains away or, in some way, justifies his abhorrent behavior as an adult. Sure, many who are abused carry on the legacy, but the majority of abuse victims do not become abusers. When you become an adult you are free to make your own decisions and you choose how you treat others regardless of how others treated you when you were a child.
*getting off my soap-box* To answer the original question: I'm not sure whether Ms Bronte meant him to be a Byronic hero or not. I thought a Byronic hero was supposed to be a horribly flawed character with redeeming qualities. For example, Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre. He is despicable in many ways, but is ultimately a good person once you peel away the layers. I see little, if any, redeeming qualities in Heathcliff (at least not in the second part of the book). Maybe they are there and I just missed seeing them because of my disgust. I see him as a villain-protagonist.