Pride and Prejudice
discussion
Which book did you enjoy more P&P or Wuthering Heights?
It's Wuthering Heights for me, although it seems to go against the grain. I haven't read it for a long time, but the tension throughout really got to me...
Wuthering Heights owns my heart. Heathcliff and Cathy are the most passionate duo in literature. The fact that there love is not to be only makes the story more appealing. The desire it creates due to the tension between the two characters makes for entertaining reading. I like mr. Darcy and elizabeth...but their society and all its formalities drove me batty.
Hannah wrote: "kellyjane wrote: "I've already offered an opinion in this thread, but want to flesh it out a little more. What I detest about 'Wuthering Heights' is that it portrays love in a shape that is insuff..."Hannah wrote: That's what makes it so revolutionary. We don't get the usual bed of roses view of love. And that's fascinating. It's definitely one of my favorite books.
I think it's a matter of different strokes for different folks Hannah. Personally speaking, I don't find the relationships or the dynamics portrayed in Wuthering Heights to be fascinating. To me there is a banality to the dysfunction portrayed in the novel, as there generally is (for me) with all activities predominated by low choices. What I see in the novel is profound and destructive ignorance masquerading as something more noble. Not that such things can't be interesting; but Emily Bronte didn't render them in a way that was interesting to me personally. On the contrary, the book almost romanticizes mental illness in my reading of it.
On the other hand, I recognize that a great many people like or love Wuthering Heights for a variety of different reasons. So I accept that I'm 'missing the boat' so to speak on something about the novel. At the end of the day I'm okay with this, and certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone their own experience. Obviously the work has inspired you in a far different way than what I have gotten from it. Believe it or not, I actually celebrate that fact-- life, it seems, is not limited to my personal limitations, phew! Seriously, if you are deriving heartfelt inspiration or admiration from the story,then in some way or another you are on some kind of right track, because the part of yourself that has such experiences would not mislead you (all in my opinion of course). So I am glad that you are going where I, alas, do not on this one. I may not share your wavelength for this particular story, but all the same can appreciate your enthusiasm, and recognize that there is something valuable within it.
Cemre wrote: "@kellyjaneWhy do you think WH romanticizes dysfunction and menmak ilness? Of course it will try to present it as dramatic and meaningful, that's what literature do, finding meaning in meaningless ..."
I love menmak! For me, the fact that Cathy and Heathcliff might today be diagnosed as mentally ill people who make low choices is irrelevant. Couldn't that could be said of characters in many of the world's greatest tales and stories? WH is a work of art in its evocation of a place, time, and characters, whatever their dynamics. When I think of it I think of raw yet delicate emotion and color.
Cemre wrote: "Why do you think WH romanticizes dysfunction and menmak ilness? Of course it will try to present it as dramatic and meaningful, that's what literature do, finding meaning in meaningless things. WH no way encourages mental ilness."Perhaps I should have put it a little differently. The story presents dysfunction and mental illness, and then some of its more vocal fans seem (to me) to romanticize all of that. Now none of this has anything to do with 'encouraging' anything-- in my reading of it, Emily Bronte wasn't writing for the purpose of encouraging any one thing or another. I felt that she was simply presenting a different, harsher, more intense and desperate picture of life than what was commonly published in her time-- along with a stylized spirituality implicit in the text for accommodating such pictures. She 'colored outside of the lines' so to speak, and obviously did so in a way that has secured a legion of admiring fans ever afterward.
Now in my opinion Heathcliff and Cathy (among others) would have been much better served had they chosen to focus on healing their own emotional injuries than in locating their 'answers' outside of themselves. They would have helped both themselves and everyone outside of themselves, by healing rather than expanding the destructiveness of profound emotional injury. So when I hear Wuthering Heights characterized as a great love story, it rings very hollow for me personally, and even lamentably so. For me it reads more like a horror story, with even 'love' perverted into something deplorably warped and destructive.
And I know that it's possible to consider and even appreciate the work in those terms, rather than as a great love story. But even in those terms, it's not the kind of substance that I personally find very interesting in stories. If I could magically leap into the book, then I'm sure that I would have felt real compassion for many of the characters-- but little or no admiration, considering that they were abandoning themselves to lower choices rather than trying to make higher ones. Or something like that anyway.
Dana wrote: "I used to be a big Wuthering Heights fan. But lately I like Pride & Prejudice better. There's too much hate in Wuthering Heights."So much hate in that book.
Elaine wrote: "I've read Pride and Prejudice several times because I love it so much. I read Wuthering Heights only once and vowed never to read it again."I'm glad I'm not the only one. I was disturbed by Wuthering Heights. I don't understand why it's considered to be a great romance. To me, it's a book about abusive relationships.
Cemre wrote: "@kelljaneNow ı understand what you're saying. We like different kind of stories then, ı respect your tastes, there isn't much that can be said about that."
I think that you put it perfectly. And for whatever it may be worth to you, I am enjoying seeing the story through your eyes, precisely because I know that there are things to appreciate within the story that I am not seeing. So the window of perspective that you provide is, for me, something that I can't duplicate, which allows me glimpses that otherwise would be be obscured from my horizon. Or something like that-- I'm glad to have access to other points of view, and appreciate when people are willing to detail theirs.
Cemre wrote: "@kelljaneNow ı understand what you're saying. We like different kind of stories then, ı respect your tastes, there isn't much that can be said about that."
You know the story really well. I've read it twice but I couldn't discuss the story so clearly. Thanks. I'll probably read it again. From what I've read, Emily herself was a tormented soul. Emily Dickinson very much admired Bronte's poetry and you can see the influence, though I haven't read nearly so much of Bronte's poetry as Dickinson's.
I always think of the young Cathy and Heathcliff as loving each other deeply, but as they grow toward adulthood it seems to me that what they feel evolves into a mutual sexual obsession. They are cruel to each other (and everyone else, of course) which does not fit with my definition of love. It's romantic in that it inspires heightened emotions when I read it, but in the same way that a story of high adventure might inspire such emotions and be termed romantic. I don't consider it a love story, because by the time they reach adulthood Cathy and Heathcliff are both too damaged to love anyone. Heathcliff may be largely a product of his circumstances, but I have to wonder if there was not something essentially wrong with Cathy, since so much of her suffering is self-inflicted, and seems to be inspired by spite, so that those who care for her might suffer too.
Darcy and Elizabeth are not as exciting. But as I read their story I think, "This is how romantic love in the real world begins and grows." I can identify with what Elizabeth feels, and I recognize Mr. Darcy as someone I might come to love. By the end, sexual attraction, being "in love," is turning into the kind of loving relationship that will only deepen with time. To me, P &P is a love story, while W H is not.
Teresa wrote: "I always think of the young Cathy and Heathcliff as loving each other deeply, but as they grow toward adulthood it seems to me that what they feel evolves into a mutual sexual obsession. They are ..."I think you really hit this topic right on the nose for me. When I read Wuthering Heights, I didn't feel that it was a love story at all. At first I was drawn in about how cute they were together as kids but after that..I felt that the relationship became abusive.
Darcy and Elizabeth to me always was a great love story. Maybe it's not as dramatic as Wuthering Heights, but the type of scandal in P&P I'm sure it was considered to be very dramatic in its time.
I LOVE Pride and Prejudice! I liked Wuthering Heights, but I liked P&P much better.
Pride and Prejudice! It was difficult to pick one, but Pride and Prejudice is a book I would read again and again, while I did love Wuthering Heights, once was enough for me.
P&P. I had a bad first impression on Wuthering Heights, it confused me as it progressed, and found it "okay" at the end.
I have grown fond of WH (It took me a while to really get into the story). After my third read I found it funny and dark. I loved Heathcliff. I found him dark and mysterious. Like the bad boy you cant bring home to momma. But I have a special place in my heart for happly-ever afters like P&P. I mean who can resist a Mr. Darcy. Come on thats the one you take home to momma.
I enjoy reading the contributions of Kellyjane & Cemre.Something I must say in regards to Wuthering Heights, it might have gone against Emily Bronte's nature, but I feel if Emily Bronte lived, and wrote a sequel it may have possibly gone in the direction of Austen. Hareton & Cathy were moving away from the madness and dysfunction into something more stable and social. The ghosts of Heathcliff & Catherine would eventually fade through time, they would eventually have to become a part of society sooner or later, and they accepted each other.
Emily doesn't exactly guarantee it to be a happy union, but it strongly is suggested to me it will be. I think this is Emily's ultimate statement in the novel: that a Heathcliff and Catherine could not possibly function in the real, and changing world of the time, Heatchliff shutting himself away from the world, hating everyone in the world, brooding etc etc. Hareton and Cathy, while being less dramatic and for many people, interesting as their formers, are more adaptable, grounded and willing to learn, these people can function and contribute to society.
Also one has to look at Joseph a lot more in WH, remember his large influence upon the Earnshaw household early on; creating a hostile and discorded environment. Heathcliff may have furthered the disharmony in the household when he arrived, but it seems Joseph had a large influence long before Heathcliff arrived. It's only at the end with Hareton and Cathy moving to Thrushcross Grange, digging up Joseph's fruit tree, all the symbols of Joseph losing his influence over the next generation.Remember that Joseph is the one who accompanies Lockwood in his first dream to hear Jabes Branderham preach about the unforgivable sin, and always forgiving your fellow man. I always felt that dream was a very underrated and overlooked part of the novel, and quite humorous too how Lockwood is astounded at Jabe's conceiving all of these sins, and his restless boredom at the sermon. It certainly sets the tone for the rest of the novel in the domino effect of violence and hostility the characters pursue: "every man's hand was against his neighbour".
Hands down, Pride and Prejudice
It's just such an irrelevant comparison when you think about it.
While I liked Wuthering Heights for the dark imagery, it has never been a favorite of mine. However, P&P has been one of my guilty pleasures. I'm really embarrassed by how many times I have read it. So, needless to say, Pride and Prejudice is hands down my preference between the two novels.
Kallie, yeah I agree, but it always makes me write long rambling comments, I guess it draws reactions from people. I wonder if this question would attract the same attention if it was between House of Mirth and Pride and Prejudice instead.
Michael wrote: "Kallie, yeah I agree, but it always makes me write long rambling comments, I guess it draws reactions from people. I wonder if this question would attract the same attention if it was between House..."No, I like the rambling. And the idea of comparing House of Mirth and Pride and Prejudice. I would say right off that Austen liked women a lot more than Wharton did. But that's just the beginning.
Pride and Prejudice I like more than Wuthering Heights. In my opinion to compare them fairly easily, because filing a love story in Pride and Prejudice and Wuthering Heights is different. In Wuthering Heights I liked the atmospherics and the description of nature and life heroes. But the main characters of Wuthering Heights caused a storm of negative emotions. In Pride and Prejudice everything differently. None of the constant tension of the atmosphere (it is not as strongly felt), which is in Wuthering Heights. Pride and Prejudice read easier than Wuthering Heights. If I like the characters in the book, hence the relation to it I will have a positive.
I would like to hear more about your thoughts between The House of Mirth and Pride and Prejudice, it seems the more sensible comparison. Wharton was obviously familiar with and studied Austen, whereas I really don't think Emily Bronte read Austen at all, certainly not before she wrote Wuthering Heights.I found an essay Emily Bronte wrote while studying in Belgium in 1842. I noticed many allusions, and ideas she later expounded upon in Wuthering Heights: Spirituality, religion, death, sin, rebirth...it's amazing she turned it into one of the greatest novels of all time. I guess that's the power of the creative mind.
http://bethanya2literature.blogspot.c...
Both are set in the Regency Era, both are written by women, both are considered classics, so they HAVE to be compared. Seriously? They are so different. They have nothing in common except for the three things I've just said. Both books are wonderful in their own right, even though lots of people love both, lots of people love one of them (Pride and Prejudice is a lot more popular, but gothic fans prefer Wuthering Heights) and many people don't like either.
I love both books in their way.
I love both books in their way.
Kayla wrote: "Neither. In fact, I couldn't stand either book for some reason, which has made other readers look at me with surprise and never listen to me again when I talk about books, thinking I don't know wha..."Well, both books were written in 1800s and the English was different then.
How do you pick? Wuthering Heights is super intense and dark, while Pride and Prejudice is comical and pleasant. I guess it depends on what kind of mood I'm in. For classic chick lit night though, I'd definitely go with Pride and Prejudice. (and I say chick lit in the best way possible ;))
Sarah wrote: "How do you pick? Wuthering Heights is super intense and dark, while Pride and Prejudice is comical and pleasant. I guess it depends on what kind of mood I'm in. For classic chick lit night though, ..."Pride and Prejudice isn't a barrel of laughs all the way through - there's the small matter of Lydia's elopement and Wickham's character, both of which would have been shocking to Austen's readers. Neither of these, however, can compare to the necrophilia of Wuthering Heights.
Of the Bronte sisters I prefer Charlotte, especially Villette, but I might give Wuthering Heights another go.
Can you even compare it? Pride and Prejudice is nothing compared to Wuthering Heights. Even in the way it is written. Plus, W.H. is way more complex and the story isn't predictable (in P&P you can guess what happens in the end very easily)
Cemre, I found one more titled "The Cat"http://kleurrijkbrontesisters.blogspo...
I always thought Frankenstein was a good comparison for WH; multiple narrators, letters, conflict, revenge, both Bronte and Shelley drawing from Milton & Shakespeare. The fact it was written during Austen's time is incredible.
Michael wrote: "Cemre, I found one more titled "The Cat"http://kleurrijkbrontesisters.blogspo...
I always thought Frankenstein was a good comparison for WH; multip..."
Good comparison. Both are Gothic, hyper-real, romantic, tortured. I was not altogether surprised to read that Emily Dickinson admired Emily Bronte's poetry. I don't know if she read Wuthering Heights.
Cemre wrote: "Long story short, WH is like a folk story, basic and violent and (nearly) universal ; while P&P is a realistic novel without that much of a meaning beyond its surface."Good analysis of differences and I hadn't thought of WH as more like a folk tale though I think it (and the novel form) more sophisticated. This distinction supports the opinion that comparing the two books makes little sense; they are from entirely different 'genres.' WH is gothic, romantic, and P&P a comedy of manners (of the time). I like them both, for very different kinds of reading pleasure. When people say one is better than the other, aren't they mainly stating a preference for one type of story over another?
Pride and Prejudice is my favourite without a doubt. Austen´s wit and social satire exposes the unfairness of gender politics as well as the social injustice. I fail to see how this can be regarded as a shallow novel, just because she chose humour as a means to convey the message. Personally I much prefer Austen´s wit to the heavy-handed drama of Brontë´s Wuthering Heights.
Cemre wrote: "Oh, Kallie ı like them both too. I want this to be understood. Emma is one of the best character studies ı've read. They're just so incredibly different. And WH is most certainly sophisticated. E..."
Oh, I very much like the comparison of WH to a folk tale. As I said, hadn't thought of that and folk tales are particularly fascinating to me because they do reflect culture. It's fresh to me, thinking of WH in that way.
I love the Bronte sisters, and had a professor who said Wuthering Heights (which I called Withering) was the better book. I loved Jane Eyre.I'm not an Austen fan; maybe some other time I will be
Cemre wrote: Long story short, WH is like a folk story, basic and violent and (nearly) universal ; while P&P is a realistic novel without that much of a meaning beyond its surface.For me, Pride And Prejudice had much more meaning than just upon the surface (as all of Jane Austen's mature works do for me). I find her a masterful chronicler of human nature whose works are replete with simple natural wisdom. This is why many fans including myself have found her work to be genuinely universal. Her settings may have been exclusive, but her characters and their interactions have spoken a deftly familiar language to millions of fans across two-hundred years and counting.
Wuthering Heights. I love the Bronte sisters work. I can't stand Austen but I will try again in a few years.
If this had been asked of me back in HS when I originally read both of them, I would have said Pride and Prejudice. I originally detested Wuthering Heights but have since gained appreciation for it over time. I've re-read Wuthering Heights so many times and watched most of the movie adaptions that have been made. I didn't really have the same level of lasting interest in Pride and Prejudice. I also think that even though I didn't like most of the characters in Wuthering Heights, they were much more complex and dynamic and by extension, are much more interesting to me than the characters in Pride and Prejudice. I also think that many of my initial reactions to both works may have been tainted by the way they were presented to me initially by overzealous teachers w/ biased opinions and agendas toward each work.
Austen's work is far more enjoyable to the average person, while Wuthering Heights takes someone more willing to really sit down and absorb the novel. Both novels are complex, but Pride and Prejudice has a more serene surface with the cogs and wheels turning beneath. The storms raging throughout Wuthering Heights are present from the moment you enter its bizarre world of passion gone awry.
Both are wonderful in their own way and I love both.
Pride and Prejudice is a pleasure to read. I've read Wuthering Heights, but I didn't much enjoy its darkness, though certainly it's a fine, literary work.
Agreed, Margaret. P&P is just a pleasure. Happy ending, excellent characterization, and some of the best dialogue of any book, ever! I also agree with Cemre, and too funny!
Cemre wrote: "An interesting fact: Despite their differences, both books are concerned about female children's inability to inherit. Of course this problem is treated very differently. In P&P , you should marry ..."Lol!! Best description of WH ever!
Somerandom wrote: "Cemre wrote: "An interesting fact: Despite their differences, both books are concerned about female children's inability to inherit. Of course this problem is treated very differently. In P&P , you..."I liked Cemre's WH in a nutshell too. I think Emily Bronte had a very different disposition toward the world than Austen, who believably contrived for Elizabeth to avoid marriage to Collins (I doubt that often happened in real life).
I like both Austen and the Brontes. My preference depends on my mood.
Kallie wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Cemre wrote: "An interesting fact: Despite their differences, both books are concerned about female children's inability to inherit. Of course this problem is treated very differ..."Well Emily did not think highly of Austen, to say the least. She felt that Austen didn't "get" her characters and probably found them a bit flat. I guess the romanticized world of Austen bored her and probably felt out of reach.
But it is Emily's characters that seem romanticized, if in a Gothic way. I doubt JA and EB would have seen eye-to-eye. Had they met, which is unlikely. That doesn't make one a better writer than the other. And anyway, Emily has the advantage of a one-sided, hindsight connection with JA who couldn't critique her in turn. I like WH and EB, but that's kind of a cheap shot, don't you think?
Kallie wrote: "But it is Emily's characters that seem romanticized, if in a Gothic way. I doubt JA and EB would have seen eye-to-eye. Had they met, which is unlikely. That doesn't make one a better writer than ..."Emily's characters seem romanticized because of public opinion, not because of the actual writing. Though I agree with you that the Gothic Romance aspect is present, obviously. But both Heathcliff and Cathy Sr are a couple of.....well for a lack of a better term assholes. At least that's how they are presented to us.
Much like people treat Romeo and Juliet as an epic world wind romance when in reality the characters are a couple of insipid twits who exemplify blind irrational lust and conflate it with "true love." So do people treat WH as some romantic epic, when it's really kind of a sick story, if you think about it.
But regardless, I didn't say I agree with Emily's assessment, just pointing out something I learned in English Class and a probable reason why WH turned out to be something of an antithesis for P&P. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.
Somerandom wrote: "a probable reason why WH turned out to be something of an antithesis for P&P. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. ..."I hadn't thought of that. It's interesting if Emily Bronte found the happy ending romance of JA stories annoying. I haven't read a lot about her life (and her family's) but as I remember it was difficult and her brother had problems, and she was an intense, emotional person.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I've read Wuthering Heights — twice.