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).

[Rebecca]

Not in the Cavanah version! (It's been years since I've seen it but I remember thinking, Man. This Heathcliff is an asshole!) :-)

[Rebecca]

One of the things I most wanted to do when I went over to the UK was visit those moors, which were a character almost in themselves. I'm glad I did that.

[Lucinda]

Cemre: Re: pitying Heathcliff, here's my take on it above: '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...'
While I don't agree with Christians over many things, I do over hating the evil actions and not hating the person who does them: I always admired that quote of Graham Green 'Hatred is a failur of imagination'...With Heathcliff, because he deludes himself he is entirely in the right in his last speech to Nelly and is so scornful of the very notion of accepting responsibility - and that's typical of abusers, of course, very astute - I felt outraged as well as sorry for him: and disappointed; of course, there's that whole issue of Emily Bronte being fascinated by the spiritual fate of the unrepentant Byronic character.
Rebaeca: Thanks for that link, I think I'll treat myself! About the moors, I'm sure you knew already before you visited how the Bronte's were between the moors and the thriving Victorian industrial community of the town, but Emily focused her attention on the moors, unlike Charlotte.
Jamie: Another film, that's intriguing.

[Alecto]

Very interesting discussion...
I was swept away by the characters'passions in Wuthering Heights. I reckon that, to me, this book must be felt, more than understood or even explained.
Catherine and Heathcliff are wild things, driven by instinct and passions, almost the embodiement of the nature they live in, so dramatic, in that regards Heathcliff is indeed a Byronic hero. They're beyond right or wrong, beyond rules and laws, they're free and take from life and others what they want or need. What I think disturbs people, is the lack of remorse in that, but does a lightning feel sorry for the tree it burns? It's the same for them. I actually very much empathize with them and always find boring most of the other characters and especially, self righteous Mrs Dean, verging on annoying. If there's someone I pity is the Lintons for being feeble and unable to understand, or Hindley for being a downright harebrained asshole.

[Lucinda]

Welcome to the discussion, Alecto. I think there is a danger of finding the relentless portrayal of supposedly 'ungovernable' passions so exciting that one can forget the humane values that I am sure always influenced Emily Bronte. I have to say at once that I think the notion of any character's being seen as 'beyond' good and evil is a very dangerous one, just as it is for real people (I expect Hitler thought he was 'beyond' good and evil as do other psychopaths). Heathcliff does disgusting things; most Byronic heroes don't delight in bullying women and children, etc.I think Isabella, for one, was a lot stronger than most critics have admitted; she survives Heathcliff's brutalities (which might well include rape; in that age, it could only be hinted at) and escapes.

[Alecto]

Thank you Lucinda, for such and intriguing discussion. All points exposed are interesting and well put here, and it doesn't happen so often ;) .
I do not think for a moment that Heathcliff delights in being a bully, the same way a lion killing a prey is not delighting in the kill, but merely follows his istinct. As to the danger to find passions and and relentlesness so exiciting, well I do not agree, life would be dull, enclosed in the limited precints of self righteousness and doing good. In books, we are free to appreciate a parallel universe where ossianic forces can still drive a man/woman and I find it to be one of the many highlights of reading.
On a more personal level, which of course has its weight on my tastes in literature, I must say I despise feebleness and superficiality. Of course I would not hurt anyone on this basis, but still, I cant empathize with such characters in life, as well as in literature. I always had a penchant for villains, Rhett Butler, Scarlet, Rochester back to Maleficent when I was a kid. In a world of paradoxes and extremes, like a novel is, with its characters stigmatization, I do find the villains more interesting, intense and compelling as a character than the usual boring monodimensional hero. As for the Hitler example, I personally believe he thought he WAS the good and the evil, more than being above it, which is quite a difference ;)

[Teresa]

Indeed it is interesting to note some readers may perceive Heathcliff as a dark, romantic hero who lost the woman he loved first to social conventions and then to death. The characters of Heathcliff and Catherine are both selfish, violent and mean to those who cannot fight back. To see them in a romantic light is to miss the irony of Emily Bronte's tale. Many Victorian novels of the time displayed a pair of lovers separated by class distinctions and tragically unable to marry (Woman in White comes to mind) and somehow circumstances, bordering on the ridiculous, eventually bring them together or rip them apart forever. Heathcliff and Catherine were part of that paradigm yet instead of being paragons of Victorian goodness and virtue, they were quite the opposite. Catherine's selfish nature was the result of being pampered and spoiled and catered to, whereas Heathcliff's was the result of abuse. It was shown their inborn traits of self-centeredness was brought out by different, yet equally ruinous bad upbringings.

The novels of the Bronte sisters, although supporting the conventional Victorian morality, sought to break the dull formulaic patterns of the literature and bring in some realism to the story line. Teaching a lesson about bad parenting, showing the complexities of human nature, the causes & evils of domestic violence and triumph over adversity by adhering to a strong moral code are part of the themes of this novel, not redemption through love and romance. Also of note is this novel was so out of the conventional genre the publishers would not accept it; Emily had to self publish the first run of the novel.

[Alecto]

Teresa I do agree with your analysis, but while I think you're totally right in what you say, I also think there's more to the novel than breaking rules. Emily Bronte was the most reclusive and genial of the three sisters, the one who less adjusted to conventions. While she suffered for the solitude this brought onto her, she could and would not be different. Her sisters somehow compromised between their own free mind and spirit and what was expected from them as women in Victorian times, in life as well as literature, Emily didn't. Her poems and only novel would not as you say be published because she put in it all the strain of her wildest fantasy and feelings. So yes, I believe she wanted to break rules of victorian times and expose certain things, but also wanted to express the wildest, flawed part of herself which was not accepted but made a genius of her. Besides, romantic hero to me is not romantic as the meaning we give the word today, but dramatic. Romanticism as a literary trend, was more about dramatization of feelings and passions ( which was an escape from strictly moral cultures and life codes) than about love the way we intend it today.

[Lucinda]

Aelecto,I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion.
Of course, scoundrels can be fascinating. I enjoy writing about scoundrels myself! I am also fascinated by wild passions. But I don't have any respect for men who take advantage of sex roles to bully women; they are usually very weak, and I have to say, I found Heathcliff to be a very weak character. He had the emotional range of a toddler, I'd say.
Villains can be very sympathetic, if they question conventional notions of ownership of private property, say; or if they take a wicked delight in shocking the hidebound.
Still, I can't find patriarchal brutes like Heathcliff sympththetic at all. His view of women is really very possessive and conventional. He wants to own Cathy, who may well be questioning the notion of monogamy (Emile Bronte could hardly say so in so many words in that era).
I would diagree that a person who espouses humane (as distinct from self righteous, puritanical values) has to be self righteous or dull. Classic ones like 'Pamela' and 'Evalina' are, but there's no need to stick to that limited paradigm.
Isn't a major difference between humans and the higher mammals that we have (or should have, unless we are deranged) a conscience? I have always tended to think that Heathcliff did delight in bullying his victims in a way a lion doesn't - 'the more the worms writhe' etc. He tells Cathy that he won't pay her back for what he sees as her ill treatment of him, but will take it out on others; he reminds her of this, when she reproaches him for pursuing Isabella without loving her.
So often, Heathcliff's acts are mean and low minded. I don't see any grand passions there. Surely the sort of characters who most fascinate are the ones who are incapable of mean spirited actions? (Anthony,who does a lot of dreadfully callous things, rises to that when he gives his ovation over his enemy Brutus' corpse, etc)?
Since it was pointed out to me that Rhett Butler is a rapist, I must admit I find him disgusting, too. Rochester is, I think, a much better depiction of the qualities of the Brooding and Byronic type than Heathcliff.
Is there a difference in practice, between thinking one is above good and evil and in thinking one represents both? They are both surely, forms of elitism, if I remember my philisophy right (a long, long time since I studied it)?

Theresa: that's a fascinating take on the issues. I must be misinformed, as I'd always imagined that Emily did in the end find a publisher, so that's fascinating particularly.

[Lucinda]

Sorry, Jamie, cross posted!
I do feel sorry for wretched, driven characters in real life and in fiction, while admitting that what they do is disgusting and condemning their actions unreservedly. I find it very hard to feel any sympathy at all for men who abuse women, but I try and see their repulsive behaviour as partly the result of a society that devalues women and humane values. It's hard work, though! I came across a great cartoon of a man being struck by a bolt of lightening, so that his penis falls off, and I'm afraid I chuckled and thought 'I'd love that to happen to all rapists automatically, fate paying them back'. That is the sort of brutality in myself I have to watch out for!

[Alecto]

Heathcliff and Catherine do not think themselves beyond good or evil, I put them there, because they're being made of passions, dramatic and fearless, part more of nature sorrounding them than humankind. This is a love so strong that goes into obsession, that goes beyond death itself. This is a couple of one spirit in two bodies and whatever keeps them apart must shatter, even their own lives. Heathcliff espouses human traits, sorrow, pain, loneliness are all human, he just handles them as best or worse as he can with what life has taught him. I personally do not perceive him as a rapist ( not even Rhett Butler). Isabella goes willingly to him, deceived by her own spoilt conceptions, unaware of human nature. Is she hurt? Of course, just like any unexperienced person gets hurt meeting life. While I do not advise learning life the hard way is good for all, I must note that in those times, women were trained to be obedient and submissive, grew up knowing nothing more on men than what they learned on romantic novels and therefore more often than not were bound to suffer impact with reality bitterly, which is sad, but would probably have happened with anyone she married.
However, I believe the point is that I see the book as a piece of extraordinary genius, by a woman who felt and knew so many emotions without ever being able to express them in life and feel it as a way to send all this energy trhough the pages to readers, not as a kind of example on how we should live our lives, or what is good and what is not. I condemn rape and bullism, just do not see things under this light in the book. Should I apply situations of WH in real life, I'd say that a woman who runs away with someone that she barely knows, even though she's been warned by a loving brother about his shortcomings does not deserve to be doomed, but is bound to be, from this villain or the next, because she doesn't have in herself the capability of understaning what is good and safe for her to do. Awareness wants a lot of self analysis and experience before giving fruit.

[Lucinda]

Well, Alecto, fascinating as I find your points, we must agree to disagree, I think! I don't think any character should be placed above ethical notions. Sadly, given the damage that their obsessive behaviour causes, I don't see Cathy and Heathcliff as truly loving one another at all; they're obsessed, but it's selfish possessiveness on his part for sure, and conventionally patriarchal, and has the ugliest consequences because he doesn't get his own way. I do see him as very weak, as bullies do tend to be.
As regards rape, I think that while Isabella goes willingly to him, which is foolish, but understandable in a silly young girl, there seems to be a sexual content to her remarks to Nelly about whether he is even a man. Of course, up to the 1970's, the law didn't accept that a man could rape his wife.
I think Emily Bronte's sexual inexperienc gave her story a weirdly asexual context (for instance, the last meeting between the heavily pregnant Cathy and Heathcliff). I believe she was very 'mannish' in her behaviour, notoriously so among the sisters, and it may even have been possible that she wasn't attracted to men at all; a dislike of domineering men (such as her father)may well have been a factor in writing Wuthering Heights. Impossible to guess, of course.
I was fascinated, as I've said above, by a critic mentioning how her poems DO reflect a fascination with notions of good and evil and the spritual fate of the unrepentant, Byronic hero, and I think this can be applied to Wuthering Heights.

[Lucinda]

Cemre: I do find the cold blooded revenge thing one of the most rebarbative aspects of Heathcliff, and the fact that he's not even taking revenge against the people who originally injured him.I agree that Edgar isn't a loving brother - after Isabella is married to Heathcliff, he writes her off and won't even send her a comforting message. I thought that was mean spirited of him, whatever excuses he made.
Jamie So agree.I wonder how far Bramwell's excesses influenced their writing too, even apart from 'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall'.

[Lucinda]

Interesting, Emma. I fully understand the appeal of 'bad boys - rascals, high spirited rogues, men who are rebellious, even violent (with other aggressive men) in both fiction and in real life.

I know he is, as in that Wicki quote - often regarded as a 'tortured romantic hero'. I find that frankly puzzling, myself. That's why I started this thread, really; because I found it so astounding. I've read the book three times, and each time I've been more disgusted by Heathcliff's acts.
A lot of women readers distinguish between fantasy and real life, but I don't, because surely, as has been argued, our fantasies come from real life conditioning; hence the dismal rape fantasies of so many woman and dreams of domineering men. I think an awful lot of abused women have been attracted to weak, abusive men because they thought they resembled heroes in novels and films, etc.
Because Heathcliff's acts are those of mean spirited bullying, as I say in my introduction, I can't see his appeal at all. I tend to agree with the critic - I've forgotten her name - who says that EB is teasing the reader by making him look like a hero, and behave disgustingly, even for a villain,and she carries on this teasing throughout the book, finally even cheating the reader of repentance on H's part..

[Lucinda]

That's it, Cemre! You gave me the link.

[Lucinda]

It's so hard to say with Victorian litarture, isn't it? So much reading between the lines. Cathy isn't sexually jealous, it seems - she'd be quite happy for Heathcliff to marry Isabella, if he cared for her - and this hint of loving two men seems to shock the more conventional Nelly in their discussion earlier before Cathy married Edgar.If she finds anyone sexually attractive, it seems from her descriptions to be Edgar, not Heathcliff. Still, it is odd that Cathy's pregnancy isn't mentioned by either Heathcliff or herself - or the narrator. As this was early Victorian, the really prudish censorship came a bit later, so that in a book by Mrs Humphrey Ward the hero breaks off the engagement when the heroine is kissed by another man(she doesn't want him to, but he blames her for being indiscreet and meeting him at night). Gaskell comments on a woman's 'advanced pregnancy' in 'Mary Barton' written at about the same time, and she was ultra respectable.
Lol, it's interesting you should say that about Healthcliff's sexuality, as I was thinking when posting on the thread the other day, 'As he didn't get Cathy, and after his separation from Isabella, did Heathcliff lead a celibate life? He was just the sort of man to travel to town and abuse prostitutes, though.'

[Lucinda]

I couldn't agree more, Sweta. For my part, if he went round being aggressive to other agressive men and his original enemies only, I wouldn't think his actions quite so bad, but the way he targets those he perceives as weaker than himself as well, and on those who have done nothing to him at all but just happen to be related to his enemies, such as Isabella,the younger Cathy and Hareton (whose spirit fortunately remains unbroken so that he's one of the few characters, along with Nelly, who seems to earn Heathcliff's respect) is really foul.

[Lucinda]

I'll have to mull that over, Cemre, as I don't have a copy to hand. I'd say the melodrama is often unintentionally comic with descriptions that seem to be meant seriously coming across as ridiculous, (the way Cathy grinds her teeth as if to turn them to splinters), the fact that children talk like adults (Cathy's diary), various psychologically improbable goings on - and a too feeble reaffirmation of humane values at the end, though I think that was EB's intention, to reaffirm love as a positive thing in hte persons of Hareton and the younger Cathy. Plus,while I'm not saying authorial intrusion is a good thing, I think that if she'd only made clear her intention, which I believe was NOT to show that Heathcliff was in any way romantic or admirable, then a lot of readers wouldn't have what I regard as misconceptions about that! That's why I regard it as a 'flawed masterpiece' I suppose. Victorian censorship meant that sexuality is only implied in it , a fault it shares with all Victorian novels; this again leads to ambiguity.

[Lucinda]

Sometimes I like grotesques, Cemre! You may be right and some of the melodrama may be intended to be comic - for instance, the grinding teeth to splinters thing. I wonder if Heathcliff's penny pinching way of having porridge for dinner (he's a rich landlord by then) is meant to be funny? I also thought that sadly, in a patriarchal society, there were would be more spiteful comments from other women about Cathy's attractions, etc. There's very few novels of this era I consider to be without flaw, if any...

[Lucinda]

It would be an unconventional moral message, I think, Cemre, as in her poems (I've only read a few, though). Certainly not a conventional Victorian one. You know,my comments concerning that critics fascinating quote about her concern with the fate of the unrepentant Byronic hero; that fascinates me, too.

[Lucinda]

Well, Shakespeare was writing fast moving dramas, and in the late sixteenth/ seventeenth century at that, so I wouldn't expect his depiction of character to be as full or as sophisticated as the understanding of people two and a half centuries later; but Pushkin commented in amazement at how complex Shakespeare's characters are, compared to Byron's, say. I think Nelly would have been a bit more spiteful about Cathy's appearance,for instance; she could be both high minded (when giving advice to Heathcliff) and fallibly human in her day to day relationships with people; but overall, she's a good character, yes. I find Heathcliff frequently ridiculous rather than tragic. Who knows if that was her intention? I agree he isn't very masculine.

[Lucinda]

Probably according to Victorian patriarchal standards the father did his best, but...the Victorian head of the family was very authoritarian.

[Lucinda]

I know what you mean - but Nelly is rather an inconsistent character - sometimes good, sometimes oddly insensitive - I got the impression this depended on the requirements of the plot to some extent. But about the horse episode - true, Hindley is much older than Heathcliff, but he does seem to be provoked into his vicousness there by Heathcliff taunting him about how he can have the horse if he complains to Mr Earnshaw? You'll have to remind me of the details; I haven't got a copy to hand. Lol, I think if I narrated the story, I would be even more biased against Heathcliff. I was just thinking - believe it or not, Heathcliff isn't the male character I detest most in fiction, I dislike even more a rapist hero in Georgette Heyer's in 'Devil's Cub', James Bond and Mary Renault's Aren't I wonderful I've destroyed these nasty matriarchies' Theseus!

[Lucinda]

Interesting points, Cemre. To me 'kind' ( as distinct from weak) and 'good' aren't so different. Edgar can be quite callous,I agree. The way he writes off poor Isabella is callous, so that it's strange, as he comes across as a fond brother before that. For sure you are right about the lack of concern about the pregnant Cathy starving herself. It's lucky that Nelly's scheme for Lockwood to marry the younger Cathy doesn't come off! She does have a pitying attitude towards Heathcliff, though; and as a (not quite orthodox enough for Lockwood) Christian, she is right to warn him about what she sees as his possible risk of punishment in the next world. It may come across as priggish, but presumably a Christain would be concerned about the consequences of his lack of repentance. Nobody else seems to pity him, and Joseph is delighted at the thought that he might have gone to hell.Dreadful as the things he does are, they should be sorry for the person he has allowed himself to become.

[Lucinda]

You're a great conributer yourself, Jamie!

[Lucinda]

It must make fascinating first time reading, Jamie. I suppose the very name Rochester - the name of the wicked Earl of Restoration days - was meant to stir connotations of rakishness in the reader's brain.
I have to admit I haven't read it in years,more than I'd care to admit - and I didn't remember that bit about him being hard on the servants or old people. I won't write a spoiler by mentioning Adele! I remember he was sort of consciously cynical and 'masterful' but I did like the way he could laugh at himself.
Yes, like you my impression was much like yours, though he gets up to some naughty tricks.

[Lucinda]

Did he say that? The main male character in 'Villette' is even worse when it comes to attempts at intellectual superiority; that's quite funny. Rochester is impressed, as I remember, because he asks her if she thinks he's handsome, and she says, 'No, Sir.' That was funny.
All the Bronte sisters seem to have been fascinated by Gothic writings, as I recall, and the depiction of Byronic, jaded rakes in their fantasy worlds. Annoying, I can't remember the fancy name of Charlotte's main male protagonist in that make believe, but I think somebody wrote an article about him.

[Lucinda]

They are fascinating. The Gothic elements made acceptable to the Victorian reading public in 'Jane Eyre' especially.

I've made a cursory search for the name of the Gothic central Byronic male character in Charlotte Bronte's fantasy saga about Angria she made up with Bramwell. It began with 'Z' - daft of me to forget it, can't find it under 'Zamorna'.

[Lucinda]

Sorry - didn't make it clear - those were the stories CB made up with Branwell and never published, but I think they wrote them down and they have been published somewhere, and they were full of Gothic. Never read 'em myself...
Yes, about Goodreads discussions - and I think WH wasn't thought too highly of when it was first published - or I think the last review EB heard of was a negative one saying it had been written by a 'morbid or gloomy man' or some such, and she just smiled.

[Lucinda]

Charlotte is more sententious than Emily - this comes across as a bit sour sometimes, I think particularly in 'Villette' though there, the impossible Paul Emanuel makes for a lot of comedy. I think I'd have liked CB to endulge in her passion for Gothic characters and situations in a less controlled way, though maybe not with the excess of EB.

[Lucinda]

In some ways, it could be that EB is more suited to moden taste, culture of hurry and all that, than CB, who's very much of the three-volumes-to-get-through-so-I'll-introduce-it-slowly school.
Poor old Rochester! He was probably worried she wouldn't find him desirable 'as a man' any more!

[Lucinda]

Oh dear! I did feel sorry for him! And as you know, I think that we ought to feel sorry for Heathcliff, too, while condemning his acts unreservedly; but I would have felt more sorry for him, if he'd shown some awareness of his cruelties. He only does so once; when he says as the younger Cathy cowers away from him when he asks her to sit with him at the end words to the effect of, 'Will you come, chuck?...No, I've made myself worse than a beast to you...' That endearment is oddly touching. To Nelly, of course, when she asks him to think of eternity (not out of self-righteousness; but because as a Christian it's her duty to warn him of the dangers of punishment beyond the grave) he says he hasn't done anything wrong...

[Lucinda]

Fascinating, your suggestion that they must have known mentally ill people; of course, it makes sense. I read somewhere a version of the fostered-son-takes-over-family-property story came from their family history, but I've forgotten where I read it, annoyingly. I think it might have been on a post on a book you reccommended?
I see what you mean about starvation and Jane. What time of year was it, could it have been exposure? By a horrible irony Charlotte did die of not eating - Hyperemesis in the days before IV and meds brought on the family scourage, TB...

[Lettie]

Heathcliff does not only love Catherine, but he worships her, even though she is a worthless human being herself. And the contrast between his devotion to her and his cruelty to everyone else makes his emotions even more valuable. Isn't it impressive to be a mistress of an absolutely evil man? But I think that if you want to feel it you need to associate yourself with either one of the main characters. I personally can not do that. For me "Wuthering Heights" is a story of hatred, madness and silliness more than a story of love. And I think that not only Heathcliff has mental issues, but an author who writes about hanging a dog and throwing a child from a staircase has mental issues too.

P.S. English is not my first language and I may misuse some words.

[Lucinda]

Welcome, Lettie. Interesting points. I would hazard a lot of madness wasn't recognised as such in the early nineteenth century.
I find Emily Bronte strangely elusive - sometimes seemingly humane, sometimes oddly cold. I think she was a puzzle even to her sisters.
Because thee is so much darkness in the human psyche, and people who write about horrific things bring it to the surface (hopefully without in any way condoning it) I wonder if all authors, myself included, aren't a bit off their heads?
Unfortunately, on this thread, a number of women have stated that they find Cathy's status as the love object of a man who is cruel to everyone else enviable, and I personally find it dismal, not thinking that any woman should like a man who maltreats other women let alone children.
But they do seem to find it impressive as you say, to win the love of thoroughly evil man- one who abuses everyone else. I t does seem to be a regressive fantasy of many women, unfortunately, and one the questionable nature of which I believe feminism should address more, along with rape fantasies.

[Lucinda]

Lol, Jamie!

[R.J.]

Going back to the original post, Heathcliff may be seen as Byronic because of the appalling way Byron treated his wife.

[Lucinda]

Welcome Mary, and welcome and sorry RJ, I missed your comment about Byron , and it's certainly true he treated his wife badly. Mary, ha ha! I agree with much of what you say, especially about a Byronic anti hero being a more apt term for such charcters, though I do feel sorry for Heathcliff, precisely because he was so motivated by hatred and longing for revenge. I would understand a woman wanting to marry a groom no matter what if she loved him, but I agree, with Heathcliff's personality and the fact that he was bitterly angry with Catherine herself, the temptation is rather lessened. A lot of readers blame her for marrying Edgar, but it's arguable she found him physically attractive besides rich, and couldn't resist it...

[Lucinda]

I think the same, Mary; and also, I'm sorry to say, 'What a shame that the older Earnshaw didn't leave him on the streets of Liverpool'. But Heathcliff was perhaps intended by the author in his 'Byronic' stance as an obsessive personality with a thing about hankering after the unobtainable. He comes across to me as incapable of happiness, or of making any woman happy; that's part of his tragedy and the tragedy that he causes.

[Lucinda]

Very true, Mary! A dismal distortion of the Victorian veneration of the 'self made man', ha, ha. The less scrupulous people are, the better they thrive, and that must have been particularly the case under the unfettered capitalism of early nineteenth century England. Although I've read this book three times,I have never been quite sure of Heathcliff's exact age when he was discovered by Mr Earnshaw in Liverpool. I've a vague feeling he was about eight. If so, his character would have been far more affected by living as an urchin than if he was younger?

[Lucinda]

Yes, because there must have been so many objects of pity in the streets of Liverpool at that time that a boy of eight or thereabouts, if I'm correct about his age, wouldn't stand out as being especially needy. I know from reading somewhere that this story of an outsider being taken into the family and raised as a son only to cheat the real children of their inheritance was based on a real story from the Bronte family history - but it is weird, as you say. He's meant to speak a foreign language - so Nelly says; that might have something to do with it?

[Lucinda]

I think I got it from this book which I read a while
ago, Mary.
[[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...]]
I wasn't that keen on the books content overall, as I felt the author was falling backwards to excuse Heathcliff, but he did provide a lot of fascinating background information, including how Emily Bronte was it seems fascinated in her poetry with the concept of the Gothic,unrepentant wrongdoer and his fate in the next world. I must admit I've only read a few of her poems myself, so I must plead ignorance...

[Lucinda]

You know, it's a funny thing; I really think it's absurd the way Heathcliff is unable to get over being turned down by Catherine in favour of Edgar for twenty years or so,I think there is being 'loyal to old attachments' and there is mourning the past to a ludicrous extent, but oddly enough, I don't like fickle characters either. There's a man in Elizabeth Gaskell's 'Sylvia's Lovers' a sort of secondary hero who's sworn to marry the heroine or nobody. He comes back from being away press ganged at sea to find that she's been tricked into marrying someone else during the three years he's been away, and he pleads with her to run off with him but she refuses as she has a child (of whom she would automatically lose custody in that era). After a scene of huge melodrama, they part, but she's mortified to find that within seven months he's happily marrying a pretty heiress.
There's no satisfying me; I don't like either extreme!

[Lucinda]

Lol about a stalker! He'd take film footage of Cathy and Edgar, and post hate messages on the Internet about the Lintons and Hindley...

[Lucinda]

'...Dark, brooding farmer in search of women who go for the Bryonic hero type. I can offer a large farm with servants (of a sort) and magnificent views. Write to Mr H, Box 666. No time wasters,Lintons, excessive tea drinkers or women with spaniels need apply.' Hmmm...'
I honestly wonder if Heathcliff was too messed up emtionally even before Hindley's abuse to be anything but destructive?

[Lucinda]

Ha, Ha, Mary! Is that in the US it's on TV or UK, me being in Wales? Trouble with TV at the moment, repair needed...

[Lucinda]

Some jealousy would be inevitable anyway, and the older
Earnshaw couldn't have handled it worse, but he seems to have been a bad parental figure altogether.

[Lucinda]

Mary wrote: "He was a terrible father and his mother wasn't very nice either. I can see why she didn't like having Heathcliff move in but she basically called him Satan. I can't think that others would do what ..."

That's the civilized thing to do, of course, Mary - but Hindley seems immature anyway. As I recall his hatred seems to start when his father, through carrying Heathcliff, breaks the bow of the violin he had bought Hindley, and Hindley bursts into tears. Well, maybe he was a frustrated musician. Sibling reivalry is such a savage thing; 'primal' is the term, I think, and in such a case must be hard to resist. Cathy and Heathcliff are brought up as brother and sister. While they may not be related, I believe that book I mention above says that the author had toyed with a truly incestuous theme, but realized in Victorian times it would be too shocking.

[Blaze]

Heathcliff for me had always been a character I hate, yet there is an odd mix of sympathy with it. What if, all the things did happen positive around him? What if, people around him had loved him instead of shunning and insulting him. What if Cathy had loved him as much as he loved her?

And I think the author tried to show an answer to all those what ifs, in Hareton and Cathy's happy ending. Hareton had become just as rough in character and education as Heathcliff, and Cathy was much like her own mother. The author even made her look like her mother in appearance.

I think that's a feed that readers without realising take in, and then together with the first half of Heathcliff's struggle empathise with him, turning him into a tragedy of a Byronic hero

[Blaze]

Dysfunctional, most likely, as she was.

But then again, Cathy didn't actually love Heathcliff as much as he loved her. Had she loved him, truly loved.. what then?