If you've read both Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights - Rochester or Heathcliff?

[[deleted user]]

Rochester. Heathcliff is a major headcase (seriously, if he had really loved Cathy, he would have let her go instead of making her life miserable [granted, she was kind of unbalanced too, but still, he played a lot of mind games]). When I think about unbalanced people (like Rochester's first wife) from the 19th century and how they may have been treated, he did seem to try to do right by her (I mean, he kept her at home rather than sending her to Bedlam). Plus, he loved Jane Eyre very much.

[Ada]

Rochester withouth a word. I like Heathcliff the fire of his passion has burnt to many people.

[Julia]

Rochester, definitely. Heathcliff is...not crazy...more like devilish.
But Graham from the Villette is also charming. Quite different from both Rochester & Heathcliff, but still a very likable character. I kind of always imagined him as Matthew from Downton Abbey:)

[Lynne]

Angelosdaughter wrote: I think all of Rochester's latter actions were caused by his having lost Jane, and later, his grand house, his eyesight and a hand. He was no longer whole and no longer arrogant. His pride was humbled."

I agree, although I believe even prior to this he had more redeeming qualities than Heathcliff. However, this does prove a greater moral worth in Mr Rochester than Heathcliff demonstrated. When Mr Rochester lost Jane, he was humbled, whereas when Heathcliff lost Cathy his behaviour became worse. I know you say that Heathcliff was mistreated when he was a child and that explains his behaviour, but Heathcliff still had things to be thankful for in his childhood, like being taken in by Cathy's father. Mr Rochester, while having everything money could buy in his childhood, probably lacked love, so I don't think his life was a bed of roses either. But he at least sees the error of his ways and regrets it. Heathcliff doesn't.

Their unhappy brother Branwell, who was one of the few males they were able to observe up close is almost certainly one of their inspirations.

I can't see much of Branwell in either Rochester or Heathcliff. Certainly Anne drew on him for the Tenant of Wildfell Hall. The girls would have also seen a number of men who worked closely with their father in the church, such as William Weightman, although I don't think he inspired either Rochester or Heathcliff. He seemed quite light hearted.

The Wide Sargasso Sea is a classic in its own right and again, if you like a story, sometimes it's good to consider some of the main characters from another viewpoint.

I agree that it is good to try and view characters in a different light, but taking a story like that as the definitive view of a character that someone else created is not a good idea, as they can take it in directions the original creator did not intend.

You could say Rochester was redeemed by his sufferings, but if he hadn't had the series of catastrophes, he would have remained just as selfish as Heathcliff, even if not as hateful.

Yes, but he did have those catastrophes, just as Heathcliff had is own. Yes, both were selfish at the outset in many ways, but one redeemed himself, the other did not, which is why I prefer Rochester to Heathcliff. He accepted the chastisement of events and changed his attitude because of them, whereas Heathcliff was happy to continue to wallow in misery, without ever trying to change, and drag everyone down with him.

His treatment of all of the females in his life is dimissive and not at all kind (in the case of Adele and Mrs. Fairfax; recall some of his remarks to and regarding them), and dishonest in the case of Blanche and Jane.

His comments regarding most people were pretty harsh at that stage, so I don't know if a misogynistic bent can be drawn from them.

He was no better than Blanche; he was looking for a wife/bedwarmer, but was not in love with Blanche anymore than she with him.

He may have flirted with her prior to Jane's arrival, but there's no evidence that he would have taken her for a wife. He didn't need a wife to have a bedwarmer, his string of mistresses proves that. In fact, it seems likely that he wanted a wife to love and respect, rather than just someone to warm his bed. His comments to Jane on how he felt when returning to Thornfield just before they met suggests that he was frustrated with his inability to find a woman who was more than just a pretty face.

I'm sorry, but Rochester's finer qualities are lost on me. Neither Heathcliff nor Rochester would be my romantic ideal. Better no one than either of them.

I have never suggested that Mr Rochester is the epitome of a romantic male. I find him fascinating, but he would be too much hard work! :-) I simply believe he has more redeeming features than Heathcliff, as at least he could learn from his mistakes and try and overcome the selfish aspects of his nature. Heathcliff refused to even acknowledge he'd made any mistakes or had anything to atone for. Therefore, I am more drawn to Rochester than Heathcliff.

[☯Emily]

Thanks for your insight, Lynne.

[Karie]

I have a terrible time with this question. I love them both in their own special ways. Heathcliff has such an abundant love and desire for Catherine. Paired with his obvious determination and the fact that I love the name Heathcliff, he could easily win my heart. On the other hand, he was terribly brutal as well. As for Rochester, he was so endearing towards someone so plain and insignificant as Jane, and that is unbearably adorable. He only ever tried to do what he believed best for Jane, Bertha, and Adèle. Somehow, I'm still in favor of Heathcliff. Either way, what we can learn from these two charcters is that the attraction to the dark and brooding antihero has always been apparent and will always be relevent.

[Quinn]

Oh that's a tough choice. Neither are perfect really. Rochester seems the more obvious choice but I can't help but side with Heathcliff in the novel and I suppose I would have to choose him. I think it's easy to see why women love Heathcliff. It's called the fix it complex. A girl sees a bad boy and they think that getting him to fall in love with her will change him. That's what draws women to Heathcliff. He's a broken man who was never shown an ounce of affection by anyone but Mr. Earnshaw who died and Cathy who abandoned him for Edgar Linton. I love Heathcliff. He's alluring. There's something forbidding and exciting about him and yet also something deeply romantic. He loved Cathy all his life. He loved her so much it killed him. Who wouldn't want that kind of love? I do like Mr. Edward Rochester a lot. He would be the better choice. But I'm afraid Heathcliff would be my choice.

[Quinn]

Joyce wrote: "Rochester. It's a no-brainer for me, really. Think about it this way: Rochester loved Jane so much he would have let her go rather than make her stay and make her miserable, whilst Heathcliff kept ..."

Catherine never moved on. She always loved Heathcliff. She just married Edgar because he was more acceptable to society and richer.

[Fiorella]

Heathcliff!!

[Mary]

Mr. Rochester every time. He's got the country estate - even if he does have a nutter in the attic.

[Mind]

Heathcliff, always. And after reading and seeing the WIDE SARGASSO SEA, stuffy racist Rochester makes me nauseous.

[Mind]

Christie wrote: "Serena wrote: "And isn't Rochester, like, twice as old as Jane? Gross! "

Oh but my dear, men are like fine wine: they get better with age. Trust me on this. Rochester is, presumably, 38 or so -- h..."

But that wine so quickly turns to vinegar.

[Peggy]

Heathcliff

[☯Emily]

Mind wrote: "Heathcliff, always. And after reading and seeing the WIDE SARGASSO SEA, stuffy racist Rochester makes me nauseous."

This discussion is about Jane Eyre, NOT Wide Sargasso Sea, which was not written by the Brontes. We should be basing our comments on what the authors wrote.

Please see what Lynne wrote in Comment 256: "I don't know what's in The Wide Sargasso Sea, as I haven't read it, but it's probably unwise to take too many of its assertions about Mr Rochester seriously (I'm assuming it's hard on him??) as it was written over 100 years after Jane Eyre. While it may present an interesting viewpoint, it cannot be considered canon, as I don't think there were any details about Bertha for Jean Rhys to use in crafting the book. So, while I'm sure it's interesting, to take it as an influence when discerning what Charlotte Bronte intended when she developed Mr Rochester's character is probably not a good idea."

[Darren]

We must all be mindful of Emily's classical humanist interpretation of Rochester...

[Mind]

☯Emily wrote: "Mind wrote: "Heathcliff, always. And after reading and seeing the WIDE SARGASSO SEA, stuffy racist Rochester makes me nauseous."

This discussion is about Jane Eyre, NOT Wide Sargasso Sea, which wa..."

Heathcliff was always my choice. The remainder of my post was in the way of a postscript. The later book only reminded me how awful of him it was to keep a human being locked in solitude in his attic. The reality is that in societies where there are no attics to lock people up in, people with psychosis are often able to become somewhat productive, somewhat socially acceptable and somewhat in control of their behavior. Surely he could have paid for an attendant that could keep "Bertha" out of trouble rather than condemning her to a living death up in the attic. But poor Rochester was too embarrassed.

[☯Emily]

Mind wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Mind wrote: "Heathcliff, always. And after reading and seeing the WIDE SARGASSO SEA, stuffy racist Rochester makes me nauseous."

This discussion is about Jane Eyre, NOT Wide Sargass..."

It is certainly true that people with psychosis can live productive lives today. That was not the case during the time this book was written. There were no therapists or medication to help. The option that Rochester had was to put Bertha in an asylum where conditions were horrific.

[Mireya]

Rochester!!!

[Mind]

☯Emily wrote: "Mind wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Mind wrote: "Heathcliff, always. And after reading and seeing the WIDE SARGASSO SEA, stuffy racist Rochester makes me nauseous."

This discussion is about Jane Eyre, NOT..."

Actually, I was thinking of an article I read about India, where people with unmedicated schizophrenia were kept in the community and given whatever work they are capable of. The researchers found that they had better outcomes than people on medication in the U.S. and that many no longer had symptoms at all. They were the small cohesive villages most of us no longer live in or want to live in, but they might surely be comparable to the community of workers that kept British manorial life going. (This is not to be taken as anti-medication. Medications are the salvation for many people with psychotic illnesses.)

[☯Emily]

I have always been anti-medicine until my son got very depressed. Although it took a long time, with medication and therapy, he is back to what he was before. I'm thankful I had insurance to cover all the expenses.

[Lynne]

Certainly, in the time and country that Rochester lived, keeping Bertha in a home with constant care (even if the carer had her own problems) was more humane than the asylums of the time, where she would have been in far worse and less sanitary conditions.

[[deleted user]]

Medication and therapy for psychoses are definitely good; however, remember that JANE EYRE was written in the mid-19th century. I doubt medication (holistic or otherwise) would have been easy to know about or obtain, and therapy wasn't really developed until the early-20th century. To say nothing of the fact that we don't know what Bertha's psychosis was... and Lynne is so right about the conditions. Today we use Bedlam to mean a state of chaos, right? Well, it's for a reason...

[☯Emily]

Elizabeth wrote: "Medication and therapy for psychoses are definitely good; however, remember that JANE EYRE was written in the mid-19th century. I doubt medication (holistic or otherwise) would be easy to know abou..."

Exactly! We need to read literature in the context of the times it was written, not in the context of today's knowledge.

[Kathy]

Rochester. Of course at the beginning of both stories these men are self-centered and apparently filled with some sort of angst that everyone else around them just could not understand ever, ever!!! So they explained their extremely poor behaviour to just about everyone and all the slamming of doors. Apparently stomping around in a snit was just their way of endearing themselves to beautiful women.

But unlike Heathcliff, Rochester did change. We could say that Kathy was not as good at influencing as was Jane; surely Jane was not as insipid.

And I am a sucker for a happy ending. Especially when the characters have had some really bad times before they get there.

[Autumn]

Heathcliff before he went off the deep end.

[Audrey]

Rochester. Heathcliff was too whiney!

[D]

Neither.
Heathcliffe needs to be in jail.
Rochester married for better or worse. I felt so so sorry for Bertha. I wouldn't trust Rochester.

[Brolie]

I can't understand how this is even a question. Heathcliff was one of the most hatable characters I have ever read. There wasn't one moment that I liked him at all. Maybe MAYBE when they were kids, but as adults. HATED him.

[grapeseeds]

Rochester! I mean, I love Heathcliff as a character, but heaven knows I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole in real life...

[Roub]

heathcliffe definitely..if i'm catherine ofc n not isabella. heathcliffe was a tortured hero wid a tortured past. i simply love him. rochester comes across as boring compared to heath

[Read me two times]

If I could have Heathcliff passion and Rochester manners, I'd have also my Mr Right ^__^

[Nathalie]

I think I would pick Heathcliff. Rochester lied without a second thought to Jane about such a big thing, Heathcliff never lied that way to someone he loved. They are both big fat bastards to their loved ones, but at least Heathcliff was honest/obvious about it. Rochester was just false.

[Julie]

Hands down, Rochester everytime.

[siriusedward]

rochester without a doubt ..his love for jane shines through the story..he did some wrong he accepts that ..
i hated heathcliff..self destructive and amoral..and veryy very very selfish...arrogant...and obssessed

[siriusedward]

catherine was the worst though..she was the one to cause all that .. iremember feeling sympathy for heathcliff too..i did not like how he treated his wife and son though..so in the end i hated both Hand h.. i liked his son and catherines daughter much more..

[Chelsey]

Absolutely, Mr. Rochester.
Heathcliff was a total nut job.

[Jayne]

This is a no brainer for me. Rochester, without doubt. Taciturn, poetic, dark and brooding, with a sense of responsibility and a dark sense of humour (dressing up as a hag to find out what Jane really thought of him.) What's not to like?

Here's a thought though, Rochester. Or Christian Grey? (Make way for the nutters, people...)

[Lynne]

Hm, while I haven't read all of 50 Shades, I think Christian's a bit more predatory than Mr Rochester.

[Jayne]

Lynne wrote: "Hm, while I haven't read all of 50 Shades, I think Christian's a bit more predatory than Mr Rochester."

And then some. It was a tongue in cheek comment. Attempting to compare those two books in ANY way is a pointless sacrilege!

[Brolie]

Oh dear god please don't bring 50 shades of the worst writing in the world into such a discussion. that is not literature and shouldn't have even been mentioned in the same thought pattern as the brontes. shame shame shame on you.

[Jayne]

(Naughty chuckle behind hand) I knew that would provoke a reaction! Not sure the ironic tone came across in my post (see my review of 50Shades.) Let's all calm down now and get the discussion back to Rochester versus Heathcliff. Not much of a choice in my opinion. Has to be the Rochester every time...

[Lynne]

I couldn't agree more.

[Shayri]

the heated debated about Heathcliff and Rochester is so serious to the point that its funny..In my opinion Heathcilff and Rochester were both powerful characters
Heathcliff is best described as being intense... he either loved or loathed there was no middle ground for him .For those who say he was cruel, I beg to differ .For a man to be born a gypsy , caried of the streets in to a foreign eviorment and expect to survive amidst the cruel and unkind world, he did quite well. All through the story Heathcilff proves his worth the love shared between Cathy & Heathcliff is sureal .... One of my favourite quotes from the book best describes their relationship "If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and if all else remained, and he were annihilated, the universe would turn to a mighty stranger ...Nelly, I am Healthcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being.....”

Rochester on the other hand lived a different life exposed to deceit contempt greed and jelousy he still continued to be .Albeit he developed a harsh exterior. He just needed to be loved.
Rochester doesnot need many words . His love for Jane was an eternal flame ,meant to last beyond time ... But Heathcliff was all consuming . had they ever come together in real life ,Cathy & Heathcliff would have burned and scared each other existance .Their love was just that 'all consuming'

So to compare the two we must draw a parallel between them..while most say Rochester And some heathcliff I'll say that there is a definite tie ..... both fought for what was important to the Rochester saved Bertha more out of obligation than anything else had he ever know Jane was dead I doubt wether he would have had the sanity to escape the fire....
For those who dispute abou Heathcliff's cruelity, have you forgotten the cruel selfish spineless creature edgar and isabella were. He wanted only one thing in his life - Cathy. The agony of his loss is palpable from the first page to the last .

If you are still reading my endless rant please let me know if you beg to differ..................

[☯Emily]

Many people are raised with cruelty, but are not cruel. They don't want others to suffer as they suffered. What Heathcliff did to the second generation was unconscionable. That is what makes him a despicable creature.

[[deleted user]]

☯Emily wrote: "Many people are raised with cruelty, but are not cruel. They don't want others to suffer as they suffered. What Heathcliff did to the second generation was unconscionable. That is what makes him..."
Well, he could've treated Hareton a whole lot worse.

[Brolie]

Hareton is the sweetheart in my opinion. He had to live with Heathcliff and proved to still be a good person- unlike Heathcliff. I don't even think Heathcliff's love was based on anything more than fancy. He more just used it as a reason to be even more cruel. He is a horrible person and has no justification whatsoever.

[☯Emily]

Brooke wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Many people are raised with cruelty, but are not cruel. They don't want others to suffer as they suffered. What Heathcliff did to the second generation was unconscionable. That is..."

So that make Heathcliff good? Don't understand your reasoning. The kidnapper in Cleveland didn't kill the women. Does that justify what he DID do?

[Lynne]

Brolie wrote: "Hareton is the sweetheart in my opinion. He had to live with Heathcliff and proved to still be a good person- unlike Heathcliff. I don't even think Heathcliff's love was based on anything more than..."

Yes, Hareton is one of the few redeeming characters, and even then, it's only in the last few pages. And he is evidence that someone raised with cruelty and difficulty can rise above it, although he only seems to do it because he finds love. Was that why Heathcliff couldn't - because he didn't get the love of his life? I don't think that excuses his behaviour; perhaps it just puts Hareton's behaviour in perspective. If he hadn't found love, perhaps he would have become like Heathcliff. It's difficult to tell. Certainly, circumstances do not excuse Heathcliff's behaviour. Difficulties are not unusual, especially in novels! ;-)People should be able to work through them and move beyond them, not drag everyone to hell with them, especially in the extreme way that Heathcliff did it.

[[deleted user]]

☯Emily wrote: "Brooke wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Many people are raised with cruelty, but are not cruel. They don't want others to suffer as they suffered. What Heathcliff did to the second generation was unconscio..."
No.

Lynne wrote: "Brolie wrote: "Hareton is the sweetheart in my opinion. He had to live with Heathcliff and proved to still be a good person- unlike Heathcliff. I don't even think Heathcliff's love was based on any..."
He wanted to make everyone suffer as badly as he'd suffered. That doesn't excuse what he did. But it helps if you understand where he's coming from. Regardless, Heathcliff is one of my favorite fictional characters and always will be.

[Shayri]

☯Emily wrote: "Many people are raised with cruelty, but are not cruel. They don't want others to suffer as they suffered. What Heathcliff did to the second generation was unconscionable. That is what makes him..."

in the light of some of the arguments raised I do seem to like Rochester a bit more but hear me out on this one-
The idea of a cruel man truning into a compassionate and loving husband has for long been the tale of some very well known romance... The fact that heathcliff refused to reform, that he continued to torment Isabella and ruined Catherine( Heathcliff)'s life purely becaused he could shows us an incredibly sadistc character. But Isabella in my opinion remained a foolish naive girl who refused to believe Cathy when she warned her about Heathcliff...Truely masochistic if you ask me and quite frankly both heathcliff and isabella are of equal blame
as for Hareton he was Hindley's son . You must remember how badly Hindley treated Heathcliff till he eventually died . Seening Hareton must have been like adding salt to the wound. It does not excuse his behaviour just gives us more insight to its cause.
catherine Heathcliff was Cathy and Lintons dughter ...linton's blood ran in her veins... the man who in his eyes cathy choose purely based on monetary superiority .In the novel Heathcliff says to Nelly..." The moment her regard ceased, I would have torn his heart out, and drunk his blood! But, till then—if you don’t believe me, you don’t know me—till then, I would have died by inches before I touched a single hair of his head!’
need I say more?

as for the mistreatment of Isabella perhaps it was a reminder that only after that encounter in the marshes after which Cathy was taken by the Lintons did he begin to lose any chance of claimimg Caty as his?had the Lintons never have taken Cathy we would hae had quite a different book....
Remember he never mistreated Nelly his cruelity was shown only to the descendants of thse who chose to harn him(in any way or form)....

Perhaps the dispointment in not seenig our fallen hero rise to noblity and develope a kind heart is what drives us to view Heathcliff as cruel?
You may have sympathised with the bo in the begining of Nelly's narrative who was tortured by Hindley but later on when he grows up to avenge himself why does our regard cease...?
Maybe Heathcliff defination of revenge in the purest form is what we refuse to accept or digest ,thathe destroyed everthything that blocked his path is unacceptable or maybe because the hero of the novel is best described as the villian . maybe it is this conflict of virtues of wanting to see the best in a man who has no reedeming quality is whats s unaceptble?

For those who have read the twilight saga here is a quote in Eclipse where Bella says that " their love[Heathcliff and Cathy's] is their only redeeming quality" could not be more true...

As you see I have again managed to keep up my endless ramble... if Im wrong please tell me where.. :)