Pride and Prejudice
discussion
Which book did you enjoy more P&P or Wuthering Heights?
Pride and Prejudice anytime. I just finished Wuthering Heights and I definitely don't want to read it ever again.I agree that the narration did capture me in WH but that's it. Okay, I may have liked the ending a bit and the H and C love in the beginning but apart from that I did not enjoy the book at all. Sorry to sound so harsh but that's my opinion. On the other hand, I would read P&P any number of times.
Now, having said that, I would like to point out that those were my feelings.Coming to the criticising part of both books, here goes.
I appreciate the questions cemre raised on WH but though they tell so much about Emily's remarkable ability of depicting intense things, they don't remain on people's memories because they tell so much only when analysed critically and seperately. I am afraid that though thatey give lot of importance to the ambience of the story they don't actually relate to it-as in, mostly the story is actually more to the point without them, except where heathcliff saves baby hareton.
In P&P, every incident seems to carry a lot of weight in the storyline.( I mean that they enable us to understand the characters better, while this is not the case in the incidents mentioned from WH ). Also Austen's comments seem to dwell more on the character of the people and the society whereas Bronte seems to linger more on the religious and superstitious parts.
I am merely pointing out the subject which each dwells on when trying to add that something to the story. This answers the question of why P&P writing impresses people where WH fails to.
WH attraction lies in its uniqueness I think. Not always but most of the time it becomes the favourite for those who prefer something different and are always trying to look for flaws in what's more popular, no offence.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
@IceI don't like WH cause it's wierd or different. I like it because it's ballsy and passionate. Not saying Austen wasn't a rebel in her time but I feel like she pulls back slightly whereas Emily just goes for the jugular, so to speak. Granted I've only read part way through P&P and gave up on Emma (no offence to Austen but Clueless is by far my preference for that particular storyline.) So perhaps I'm judging a bit premature.
Even still for me Austen, though I respect her as an author, is a tad too for lack of a better word too fluffy for me. Make of that what you will.
Okay, I may not have worded it properly I think. I certainly don't think anyone's faking liking WH and I am perfectly open to criticism and I certainly don't say that WH is not worth all this because it is. My point is that you're being a little too hard on P&P. I feel that just because it is a story about people who are- if not quite belonging to the regency world, definitely at least to a better society, people think its heartless and is only meant for fun and light reading and "fluffy". It's not. Austen's written about what was plaguing the world around her then. I agree I made a mistake about what's more relevant. But its not like there are no values in P&P- they may not be society concerns but more of a character building type. Austen's criticisms and satire lies in mocking the rich, who distinguish themselves so much above others, while most of them are not even capable of sincere feelings in their activities (the Bingley sisters). Also it is more about the failings and nuances of certain people. There is so much in what she says of Mr.Bennet, who without being mean or selfish seems to have made graver mistakes than even his silly wife who at least has the excuse of being silly. He failed to exert himself out for the sake of his family and only amused himself. Charlotte's views on marriage is a nail on the head and no doubt would have created quite a stir then when this was no doubt how things happened. Mr.Hurst gives a perfect example of wasting life. There is a difference between a thing being common knowledge and what is written in black and white. The first line of the book is a very bold statement in itself. A character sketch of each person which has been mentioned is enough material for any soul-searching.
WH is, according to me, a raw way-does that sound right?- of pointing out the abuse cycles and burning of religious books.So I am not saying it is in anyway socially irrelevant or something.
There, I am getting better at wording my thoughts. Its so difficult trying to express myself clearly so I hope I haven't been contradicting myself.
Do you like Jane Eyre too? I don't. Man, I sound like I don't like anything out of the way, but that is most definitely the case. In fact, its taken me quite a few years (almost 5)to bring myself to read another Bronte novel and I am not happy with the result. Pity, so many people think WH is great- almost every Hollywood movie, has a heroine who loves it. I don't regret reading it only it's not to my taste.Sigh. I am wandering off the point, huh?
Again I mean no offence to any WH fans- only I can't understand your taste.
P&P. I can't stand the legacy Wuthering Heights has of being one of the greatest "star-crossed lovers stories." Can't. Stand. It. It's practically incest, there's an issue of identity here, and Heathcliff is practically sociopathic in his hurt ego at her logical rejection of him. Newsflash, women of that era needed to find someone to give her a comfortable life because women could not do so themselves, it was nothing personal. And then he's a dick to everyone around him to get revenge. Ridiculous.Jane Austen is a fluffy writer, writing the things that everyone wants her to write and wants to read. Nice books where the woman stays in her place and the man is clearly in control, but what Austen did is she created these characters that stayed within their bounds as women, but did little things (speaking out of turn with wisecracks so that the people around them were on the fence okay with it, having a very dynamic personality that was unusual at the time, refusing proposals because they could, etc.)
Jacque wrote: "P&P. I can't stand the legacy Wuthering Heights has of being one of the greatest "star-crossed lovers stories." Can't. Stand. It. It's practically incest, there's an issue of identity here, and He..."I doubt that a writer of Nabokov's caliber would have bothered to discuss Austen's 'Mansfield Park' in Lectures on Literature if he thought that Austen was 'a fluffy writer.' As for myself, I will say that you don't get Austen if that is what you think. Satire, however gracious, is hardly agreeable to most fluffy readers.
Heathcliff doesn't want to have a life without Cathy- Fine By Me. He doesn't want anyone else to have a life either (until he is about to die i.e.)now that is, as they say, "doing it too much brown". Even revenge can only go so far when obviously he wasn't finding it sweet.
Jacque wrote;"Jane Austen is a fluffy writer, writing the things that everyone wants her to write and wants to read. Nice books where the woman stays in her place and the man is clearly in control, but what Austen did is she created these characters that stayed within their bounds as women, but did little things (speaking out of turn with wisecracks so that the people around them were on the fence okay with it, having a very dynamic personality that was unusual at the time, refusing proposals because they could, etc.)"
Now this has me wondering if you have ever read Jane Austen.
Jacque wrote;"Jane Austen is a fluffy writer, writing the things that everyone wants her to write and wants to read. Nice books where the woman stays in her place and the man is clearly in control, but what Austen did is she created these characters that stayed within their bounds as women, but did little things (speaking out of turn with wisecracks so that the people around them were on the fence okay with it, having a very dynamic personality that was unusual at the time, refusing proposals because they could, etc.)"
I am now wondering if you have ever read Jane Austen- on the road to becoming a literature teacher are you?
Without a doubt, Pride and Prejudice. Wuthering Heights, though interesting in terms of literary merit, does not have the power of Pride and Prejudice. I found few, if any, characters in Wuthering Heights sympathetic in ANY way. It is touted as being a love story; hardly! It is a story of infatuation and fixation.Pride and Prejudice, on the other hand, shows that people can change, that individuals are not always as they seem, that for love to exist there must be some form of respect and admiration, some quiet foundation rather than just passion and extremes.
In Pride and Prejudice, no one is perfect, but there are strong characters. In fact, the characters are strong BECAUSE they are not perfect.
I have reread Pride and Prejudice numerous times. I read Wuthering Heights once, rolling my eyes most of the way through it.
PS - Susan, I am inclined to agree with you. I prefer Jane Eyre as well. (Though still not as much as Pride and Prejudice)
Cemre wrote: "The thing is there are many books that show people can change, and that individuals are not what they seem. P&P might be better than most books but it's hardly unique (yes, Ice, a few of your opini..."It is more the level at which it is done in Pride and Prejudice. I am not saying that Austen is the world's greatest writer (though I have enjoyed all of her books), or that Wuthering Heights is not without merit; it is.
Jacque wrote: "P&P. I can't stand the legacy Wuthering Heights has of being one of the greatest "star-crossed lovers stories." Can't. Stand. It. It's practically incest, there's an issue of identity here, and He..."
This is exactly spot on. It is more difficult to write well and develop strong characters with subtlety than it is to have in insane character (I'm sorry, but Heathcliff is pretty nuts.)
I think the biggest problem I have with Wuthering Heights is that "love story" reputation. Please. When things are said to be that important, that "good", that transcendent (only some of the things for which "Wuthering Heights" has a reputation), they had better stand up to it. I just feel like it doesn't. I did enjoy studying it when I did, but I just don't feel like it deserves that which Pride and Prejudice does. I love classics and hold them to a pretty high standard. Wuthering Heights is interesting, but it doesn't meet the standards laid out for it.
I was wondering if it is, perhaps, because it is dark... but no, I enjoy other "dark" books more.
I wish I liked Wuthering Heights as much as some; I feel like maybe I am missing something?
Darcy is reserved, not boring; there's a difference. His is the sort of character only intimates get to know and that does not make him boring except, probably, to people who don't know him (and why should he care about them?). There are a lot of unfounded presumptions in the rest of your post too. i.e., there is no such thing as 'nothing risky' in life and Austen is always true to life in the way her characters suffer love and loss however boring you may find the way they express that compared to WH, which though I admire it verges on melodrama. Must people or characters go to such extremes, to prove they have feelings? Sometimes I'm inclined to believe the opposite; that such people are numb and trying to work themselves up, convince themselves and others that they have feelings they can't enjoy or share with others. In that regard I like Jane Eyre better because passionate as Jane Eyre is (and she is that, enough to get herself into plenty of trouble) she is also responsible for her feelings and actions.
What I say about expressing feelings IS as true, in literature, for me, depending on the writer's artistry and vision; and that is so whether a novel is flawed or elegant. So I hope we are speaking for ourselves here rather than presuming to speak for everyone about all literature, in an all-knowing, final-word judgment on how literature should be written. Because believe me, if every novel were written in the style of WH, that would be as tedious for many readers as we would feel were all novels written in P&P style. As for Jane Eyre, there we also disagree and I believe many others would disagree with you as well. And of what importance (to the book) is someone's report of Charlotte Bronte's actions over 100 years ago? Emily Bronte is said to have beaten her dog to such an extent he was injured and took some time recovering. I like dogs, so I guess I can have no regard for WH, having read that. Well, not so. Some members of the Bronte family had problems and I think many of us in general have behaved regrettably. CB's behavior in life is irrelevant so why throw stones at a dead woman? Does that really strengthen your argument against Jane Eyre's value? I don't think so; quite the opposite.
Well then it comes down to whether the expression of feelings in literature SHOULD be the same as real life or not. And that is a matter of opinion.I am inclined to say that there should be some semblance of similarity between the two; even in the most unrealistic contexts, a human would still have a human reaction (unless there is some sort of reason why they would or would not, such as an illness or so on, but even then, that is a human situation).
In literature we allow ourselves to say the things that we only wish we could, which is all well and good and fine.
I just believe that the most influential development of characters occurs subtly. And Wuthering Heights is certainly not subtle. I do agree that it borders on melodrama.
I once read an article in which someone drew a comparison between two books, saying that one was an older sister rolling her eyes and trying to keep everything in order, while the other was a petulant younger child knocking things over and refusing to grow up. (I just searched for the article... no luck. Maybe it sounds familiar to someone else?). Anyway, the point was that one was grounded but seemed a little boring. The other was chaotic but undeveloped.
I would venture to categorize Pride and Prejudice somewhat like the older sibling. While Wuthering Heights is not the young child in that analogy, I get the sense that it is more of a stereotypical teenager, full of passions, waving its hand in the air, going to extremes to get attention. Probably a little harsh, but it goes with the analogy.
Pride and Prejudice, like the older sister in that writing (sure wish I could find it!), perhaps seems a little boring, and is more worried about holding things together, is more responsible but also developed. Maybe even a little condescending? It is definitely "quieter", but there is a lot to it when you look closer.
Neither sibling is "better", really, but one will definitely appeal to certain people more. And therefore will be touted as being better by those people. Like me, thinking Pride and Prejudice is better, for all its subtlety and nuances and boring nature.
I think the analogy works, but maybe that is just me being distracted by the fact that so much of Pride and Prejudice deals with the relationships between the sisters?
Cemre, I literally laughed out loud with your alternate title for Pride and Prejudice! That was certainly funny! Though I don't know about your comment saying:
"Maybe people like the latter more because there's nothing risky in it. You can't hate something if there isn't something there."
I get what you are saying there, but I think it depends on what you consider "something". I see Pride and Prejudice as having more substance than Wuthering Heights, for example. Which is probably why I certainly do not hate Wuthering Heights... I just think it is "fine"... an interesting study, particularly in obsession.
On a side note, I did find it interesting that Twilight brought such a resurgence in interest in it; even my youngest students (grades 7 - 9 at that time) wanted to read Wuthering Heights. It brought a lot of interesting comparisons between Edward and Bella's really unhealthy relationship and the connection between that and WH.
Not necessarily, Cemre... I have WAY more moral dilemmas about beating a dog, a living thing, especially to that extent, than I would about burning an object belonging to something else. Way more.And regardless, it is not a reflection on the work itself. Any number of authors and artists have done morally ambiguous or even repugnant things, and it is interesting to keep this in mind while studying a piece of work, but at the end of the day, the work must stand alone.
Destroying her work is in the context of the writing, but is no more important than other information about their lives. Sure, it would have been interesting to have that available, but it does not reflect poorly on the work, just the writer. Society would have loved for Emily Dickinson to publish and write and speak at events. It didn't happen. It would have been awesome for Byron to have lived longer and published more... he didn't. It would have been great for Emily's work to have not been destroyed. It was.
It doesn't change the work that exists now.
We will all die eventually and as I said, I don't care about Emily Bronte's behavior 100+ years after the fact.Comparisons between these two (or three) great novels are absurd anyway. I just don't accept people having to put down novels they can't appreciate, as if they are offended by the very idea of anyone enjoying a novel despite their own vociferous, no-holds-barred, ranting criticism. If the novels in question were pop 'lit' or historic fiction lite, or genre novels indulging the latest craze for ghouls etc. I could understand. But they are not; they have endured for a long time because they are excellent novels that don't deserve rants and tear-downs.
Ouch... Cemre, a slow clap, really? hahaha.I was bringing it up in the context of my junior high students. When it first gained resurgence. I, personally, was elated that it encouraged more interest in the book. Which I have said is worth studying.
Of course that comparison is really redundant and superficial now. I was saying I was pleased they were able to get that from it at that age and time. That was interesting.
Honestly, I care only in context of it being interesting, as it always is to understand context.I do not find her novels extremely personal.
It depends what you mean by "has it harder"?
Cemre wrote;"P&P is as unrealistic as WH, just in a different way."
And what way is that?
Cemre wrote: "I've said Jane Eyre is boring (after the mystery is solved it gets extremely slow, EXTREMELY slow) and it's not nearly as feminist as people make it out to be. Also, Charlotte is crystal clear abou..."Just keep in mind that people can admire JE but also and equally admire Jean Rhys's 'Wide Sargasso Sea.' We who think a lot of JE are not so simple-minded as you seem to assume.
Karen wrote: "Cemre wrote;"P&P is as unrealistic as WH, just in a different way."
And what way is that?"
I liked Jane Eyre very much, and Pride and Prejudice- which I got on the first reading. Haven't read Wuthering Heights. This ongoing argument for why WH is better is tiring Cemre.
The more I talk about, read about and reread excerpts from Wuthering Heights, the more it grows on me and the more I like it. There is something to this story that keeps me interested in revisiting it. As much as I liked P&P, there is something about the Brontes that makes me want to revisit them over and over again. I think it is about the Bronte's exploration the darker and wilder side of human emotions and passions, even if it is ultimately to the main character's detriment/demise. The things that I liked so much in this story are probably also the very things that someone else will probably hate. The same is probably true of P&P and Jane Eyre.
I do not think Bronte is a teenager with a temper tantrum; on the contrary, I think she is trying to do something rather sophisticated and creative.I likened her BOOK to a teenager. For the reasons I gave before.
I was not intending to attack; rather, to provide another way of looking at things. Similarly, I brought up positives and negatives for both books under that analogy.
Cemre wrote: "Majority IS with youBoth have some TRUTH to it.
I've typed these wrong."
That is because because the discussion is under P&P and might not be the case were it under a WH forum. As a person very knowledgeable about WH, why not start a discussion thread about that and similar books rather than belaboring a comparison to P&P, with which it has so little in common?
Cemre wrote: "I don't know how to start a discussion :((. I actually want to start a discussion about Wuthering Heights' initial reviews and how they're unjustly maligned, but ı don't know how to do it."at the top of this screen, type "Wuthering Heights" in the search title/author/isbn box. On the book's main page, scroll down to the bottom (past all of the reviews) to where the discussion topics begin. In the discussion banner...to the right, in small print, there are the words "new topic". Click that and it takes you to a screen where you can start a new discussion.
you can also start a new topic from the page that lists all of the discussions. to the right, click on the words "post a new topic". That also takes you to the same page.
Cemre wrote: "Ok. Now, I've read WH as a child and it's pretty important for me. I've overreacted, I admit this. Let's leave it at that. Wuthering Heights is a book about adolascence. Actually it's about not w..."
I think your passionate interest in WH could be a great catalyst for discussing that book and would read for a third time to join such a discussion (would have to; it's been a while).
I don't know about Rochester. He is left a bit of an enigma. I see no reason from anything I do know to eliminate the Sultan perspective. He does hold sway over a lot of women in his life, and with mixed feelings towards those women (except Jane). He is not the typical English gentleman.
cemre wrote: "Karen, what should we do ? Say that both are equally good ? Everybody here voiced their argument about which is better, ı've voiced mine. I'm more excited about the issue than most people here, but I'm not the only one who argues that one is better. There were people who were quiet harsh with their words on WH too. Maybe they were calmer, it's easier to be calm when the majority with your stance. There is no difference between me likening Austen to a snob and someone else likening Bronte to a teenager with temper tantrums. Both have some trite to it and both are equally demeaning."Just to put this out there, I never considered this to be a discussion about which book is better. The title of the thread asked which of the books was more personally enjoyable to read, which seems to implicitly foster the sharing of viewpoints more than angry arguments.
Pride and Prejudice hands down winner. I found P & P to be a real page turner...wanted to know what was going on with the characters more and more. I found Wuthering Heights to be a tedious read....could not really get into the story.
Cemre wrote: "The writer likened him to a one, ı of course didn't mean it literally. It's a metaphor. Thank you Mochaspresso !"
well no kidding
Have I mentioned this before somewhere? No problem. I'll say it again.I do not like Jane Eyre. Nor do I like Rochester or even St.John(that is his name right?) and not even Adele.In fact, certainly not Adele. But I think I liked St.John's girlfriend(?), his sisters and I could even tolerate Mrs.Fairfax and the St.John housekeeper.
And unfortunately since it was the only book I could get my hands on for some time( this was some years ago) I actually revisited it or at least most part of it more times than I wanted because something is better than nothing and I am afraid it only decreased my liking for it even more. And it is not in the least way about strong women if anything I found Jane Eyre weak.
Ok, maybe that was going too far.
If I had read WH as many times I might find better points to argue with because I certainly didn't get into it at my first shot and it will be many a day before I take it for a second time.
Oh and Mrs.Mac's analogy was very interesting to me though it is an exaggeration on both sides, it is apt enough.
Yes I was waiting for something for someone to bring up WH's mention in Twilight too. I barely avoided it myself.
I didn't find Jane Eyre to be weak. I liked the way that she stuck to her convictions. She did what she felt was best for her, even when it would have been very easy to accept certain choices simply because they would have been easiest thing (for a woman) to do. She could have easily justified marrying St. John. She could have easily justified being Rochester's mistress. (Is there irony in the fact that Rochester is likened to a Sultan and St. John to a despot?)
Cemre wrote: "I don't see that many similarities between Twilight and WH. So they both have love triangles, indecisive female leads and supernatural elements. They're not the only books in the world who has thes..."The Twilight series does contain genuine and deliberate allusions to WH. Bella wandering in the woodlands of the Pacific Northwest thinking that she hears Edward's voice. The ways in which the setting is incorporated into the narrative. Besides the love triangle, there is also the obsessive and all-consuming to the point of being dysfunctional nature of the love between Edward and Bella. Neither Edward, Bella or Jacob devolve into bitterness over a lost/unrequited love, but the character of Leah Clearwater certainly does.
Cemre wrote: "Hearing Edward's voice is more Jane Eyre than Wuthering Heights."Maybe. I think it's both, really. Heathcliff was wandering around believing that he could hear the ghost of Cathy too.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Cemre wrote: "I don't see that many similarities between Twilight and WH. So they both have love triangles, indecisive female leads and supernatural elements. They're not the only books in the worl..."Yes, Mochapresso, it was the nature of the relationship that my students kept bringing up. The fixation, obsession, and dysfunction of it. And, because they were 12 - 14, the "craziness" of it. (Although I do think they probably said "cray-cray"... hahahaha)
Would you say that it is a mature love, or a love that initiated in youth that never matured, only grew in obsession?
A more apt analogy is Romeo and Juliet to Twilight, or Romeo and Juliet to Wuthering Heights?It depends. In the angsty, immature love way, yes Twilight and Romeo and Juliet is a better comparison. But all three are immature loves in which there is unhealthy obsession.
I agree with your analysis about the Wuthering Heights relationship and actually don't think your Cathyism comment, though funny, is far off.
I don't know that it cannot be compared to the hormonal teenager story though; Healthcliff and Cathy never matured passed that stage of completely being emotion-driven.
Now, is Wuthering Heights far superior to Twilight? Absolutely. Of course. Vastly superior, without question. But I don't know that, at the heart of it, it is much more complex. Perhaps the routes that it takes. But at the heart of it, there is obsession which fuels all of the characters' actions. "Look at how much I love this person! Look what I am willing to do! Look!" I really think their motivations are the same.
Please understand: Wuthering Heights is leaps and bounds better. Twilight is ridiculous and cannot be considered literature. It is just responsible for a resurgence in interest in the classic novel and that is why it was mentioned.
Hm, didn't think my mentioning Twilight again would bring around such a lot of discussion.I would not compare Romeo and Juliet to either of these. However intense their love might have been it was love not obsession. It was also a simple one. Don't ask me why it's not an obsession-because there was as much revenge on Romeo's part as on Heathcliff's or because of that part were Edward dies thinking Bella's dead just like R and J? I don't know why but it just doesn't give the obsession feeling.
All right maybe there is a link between all 3- T and WH, R&J and T, WH and R&J(extremely doubtful on this) in some weird sense but I don't think that matters for in that sense we can find a link between every other book, can't we?(this is not a rhetorical question-can we? or can't we?)
Twilight is remembered for the cultural phenomenon that it became.I am not saying that it SHOULD be remembered... but it is.
And, like I have said repeatedly, it was pertinent in the context of Wuthering Heights as it introduced numerous young people to it.
Ice wrote: "Hm, didn't think my mentioning Twilight again would bring around such a lot of discussion.I would not compare Romeo and Juliet to either of these. However intense their love might have been it wa..."
I think if you look hard enough and are willing to draw very thin or tenuous or insubstantial lines at times, yes, you can probably find connections between anything.
Hold on, are you saying that something that ended should not be discussed, irrelevant of the consequences of it having existed?
This is where I get lost in these discussions. While I do think Wuthering Heights is a far superior book to Twilight, I can't bring myself to agree or vibe with the "Twilight cannot be considered literature" or "Twilight shouldn't be remembered" direction that these discussions often take. I'm convinced that this is exactly why I ended up initially hating Wuthering Heights in school. :(
Why is Twilight still remembered? Personally, I think there is more merit to the novels than people are initially willing to give them credit for. Even if it's just because of the discussions that Twilight provokes. That is one of the things that literature does (or should do).
Cemre wrote: "Twilight had stayed for much too long. Yes we can discuss it's effects, we do that now, but in an age of people not remembering last year's songs, Twilight is still in every discussion on Goodreads..."Twilight's the lit equivalent of this phenomenon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo-Y_...
We're a weird species.
Time will eventually tell, but I don't think it's truly the equivalent because William Hung did eventually fade away almost as quickly as he came. Twilight hasn't faded in that manner or quite as quickly.
Cemre wrote: "But this affects how they read WH. I've first heard of Wuthering Heights in the Afterword of my Secret Garden when ı was seven and this probably caused me to like the second half more. How you're i..."Not necessarily. Anne of Green Gables has also been fleetingly but frequently mentioned in T. So anyone would have thought that Anne is a stupid girl into dresses from the context and since I felt that this was surely an exaggeration I actually went back and read Anne of Green Gables just to prove my point and whatever anyone else might say-though I did find Anne's imaginations a little tiresome- I could see it was an overstatement.
So the mentioning of some book by some character shouldn't influence our reading of the book. As long as it prompts us to read nothing else should matter as they must then be quite capable of assessing it themselves. Only when they try to judge without reading can you feel the effects of T on WH.
Twilight-no matter how stupid people may find its romance- is still an exceptional description of vampires - almost a one of a kind. Only very good books get both the story and setting right I think. What caught me in Divergent and Hunger Games was similar. I liked the first of the series because of the extraordinary setting though further on the stories had nothing strong enough to pull the series off effectively.So I guess when the world becomes as comfortable with vampires as though they had been our next door neighbours, T might die out.
Cemre wrote;"2- Isabella's story clearly shows that Bronte does not support abuse"
But just because a writer writes about abuse does not mean the writer supports it.
Cemre wrote: "Twilight was hyped up because of successful marketing, nothing else. Half of the popular things are just the result of good marketing. What kills me is, with the help of Twilight, people began to..."
The relationship between Heathcliff and Cathy may not have been physically abusive, but it was most certainly emotionally abusive at worst and co-dependent, obsessive and unhealthy, at best. Acknowledging that does not have to necessarily be taken as a criticism of the novel.
That accusation is directed at Twilight quite a bit. WH not as much. Imo, WH doesn't romanticize abuse any more than Twilight does. The people in WH who are victims of abuses certainly do not have it "good". But I do think reader's and Hollywood's romanticizing of Healthcliff does tend to lean toward romanticizing a man with genuine abusive tendencies. Heathcliff devolved into a miserable wretch. This is made very clear. Yet, Hollywood and readers tend to tone down this side of his character and this was going on long before Twilight ever existed. Heathcliff never physically hurt Cathy...this is true...but Heathcliff and Cathy never got the opportunity to truly be together either. IRL, had they gotten that chance, with their level of obsession and dysfunction, they likely would have hurt each other far more in some way (whether it be physically or emotionally) eventually. That's why I view WH as a romance, but it's not a "good" one, from a traditional standpoint. Meaning that it's not of the HEA fairy tale variety, nor was it ever intended to be.
I took me a very long time and multiple readings to realize that I don't actually have to like Heathcliff or Cathy or their relationship to like Wuthering Heights.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Writer's so often express their ideals in this way.