Which book did you enjoy more P&P or Wuthering Heights?

[Mochaspresso]

Fwiw, given the popularity of songs like Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance", Eminem and Rihanna's "Love the Way You Lie", I think most of today's young people are able to grasp the concept of a dysfunctional "bad romance".

[Mrs. Mac]

Cemre wrote: "Again this is literature. Codependent, definetely, but theirs is shown as a special case.

Look, ı acknowledge that Heathcliff is a bad person who abuses people. What he did to Isabella, younger g..."

WHY isn't their love a bad thing? An interesting study in obsession, sure... but why isn't it bad?

[Mrs. Mac]

I can see the allegory of Heathcliff as being Cathy's "wild side", but a developed wild side.

You can have "terrible people" who have a "good love", you can have "good people" who have a terrible love... you can have terrible people who have a terrible love. They do not need to be informed by the other, but they do not need to be separate either. I think their love is "terrible" and as people they are also "terrible". I personally think terrible is a little harsh. Negative, dysfunctional, maybe.

It was mentioned that Heathcliff puts Cathy on a pedestal. That isn't healthy either. Worship reminds me of obsession, not of "good" love". I think, to get back to the original question of this thread, the reason that Pride and Prejudice is loved in terms of its love story is the relationship between the two characters. They both GROW to love and also respect one another.

On the other hand, as an honest question (I am truly curious about the answer), can ANY love be called a "bad" love?

[Mochaspresso]

Mrs. Mac wrote: "On the other hand, as an honest question (I am truly curious about the answer), can ANY love be called a "bad" love? "

I think there are plenty of examples of "bad love" and not just in a romantic sense. How about a parent that enables their drug addicted child? Or a spouse that enables their morbidly obese wife or husband. A former slave that murders her children rather than see them returned to slavery. (Margaret Garner)

One of the most profound novels on relationships that I've ever read was "Disappearing Acts" by Terry McMillan. It's about what happens when love isn't enough to save a relationship. What happens when you love someone so much that you actually begin to "disappear"? Meaning what happens when you begin to lose sight of who you are as an individual. I think that is another example of a "bad love".

I'm digressing a bit, but in the case of Heathcliff and Cathy, while I agree with what Cemre said, that they were awful people before, I also think that their love seemed to intensify the worst qualities in both of them.

[Ice]

I agree with Mochaspresso that Cathy and Heathcliff's love brings out the worst in both of them. Isn't love supposed to be where one is the better half of the other but here Cathy herself says that Heathcliff is her and that is as much as saying that he is her worse half which is retarded.

[Fernando]

Pride and prejudice

[Hazy]

Comparing the two is apples and oranges: They're two very different books with different themes.

I *enjoyed* Pride and Prejudice more, because it's light and has all of Elizabeth Bennet's snark.

Wuthering Heights, to me, was a clear picture of the darker side of humanity. Its themes were real and thought-provoking: revenge, abusive relationships, and cycles of violence. Conceptually, I liked it better but because of all the anger in Heathcliff I couldn't bring myself to read it a second time.

[Ice]

I meant backward I guess.

[kellyjane]

Mrs. Mac wrote: "On the other hand, as an honest question (I am truly curious about the answer), can ANY love be called a "bad" love?"

It's an interesting question and I'd like to try my hand at making a response. I would say that love is always a positive-- but ... people often can confuse love with other things. And even in cases where there is real love, often that love is mixed with other things rather than existing in some pure, unalloyed form. The complexities of human personality allow for love and fear and emotional injury and insecurity and neediness and in some cases aggressiveness and even sadism to mix together into a polyglot that only appears to be a single, seamless, unitary experience. The part that's real love is intrinsically positive-- but the other parts are not less detrimental to self or other all the same, and can in fact overshadow and even warp the part that's love into the reality of a very toxic and unwholesome brew.

I think that a lot can be said about the psychodynamics of these kinds of processes-- but in essence, it's about trying to feel whole without actually healing emotional injuries, trying to take a 'shortcuts', which never really work simply because there are no shortcuts. What real love that exists only gets lost (overshadowed) when relationships are primarily about psychological defenses and compensations. And depending on the depths of those unhealed injuries, and the primitiveness of the defensive constructions that are developed to cope with them, what starts out seeming to be 'love' can turn into expressions that are the very opposite of what real love would have.

[Kallie]

I think real love accepts that most of the life one shares with a loved one will not involve extremely intense emotions, but mundane acts of duty, sharing, kindness and acceptance. Does that mean being bored, or obsessed with petty matters? Not necessarily. But it does mean accepting that boring and small-scale aspects of existence, and finding or even creating humor and pleasure in that with one's family, are part of human life. In fact, I think accepting that can actually can mean going deeper into feelings of love for other people. I don't think Cathy and Heathcliff were capable of that which makes them no less worthy of literature.

[kellyjane]

kallie wrote: "I think real love accepts that most of the life one shares with a loved one will not involve extremely intense emotions, but mundane acts of duty, sharing, kindness and acceptance. Does that mean being bored, or obsessed with petty matters? Not necessarily. But it does mean accepting that boring and small-scale aspects of existence, and finding or even creating humor and pleasure in that with one's family, are part of human life. In fact, I think accepting that can actually can mean going deeper into feelings of love for other people."

I think that you put that really well kallie. Much of life is experienced on smaller scales than intense emotion. There are mundane and even repetitive experiences, tasks, etc, that come with the territory of being alive. Real love can add an element that freshens, lightens, vitalizes them in whatever ways-- and yes, often that can be simple acts of kindness or consideration, humor, forbearance, encouragement, sympathy, and so forth. The day after day experience of feeling and expressing love sometimes takes extraordinary forms, but very often takes simple natural forms when given any form at all. Anyway, I appreciate how you expressed that point.

"I don't think Cathy and Heathcliff were capable of that which makes them no less worthy of literature."

Again I agree completely with this point, but would like to use it as a springboard for clarifying a comment that I made much earlier in this discussion. I haven't yet expressed my biggest reason for not really appreciating Wuthering Heights beyond Emily Bronte's talent as a writer. Earlier I wrote something like "stories generally predominated by low choices often seem banal to me." And yet I agree that such stories are as worthy of literary focus and treatment as any other aspect of being human is or can be. I have no issue at all with that writing choice. And I have no issue at all with Emily Bronte telling exactly the story that she told in exactly the way that she did. If anything, I admire the integrity and courage that was required of her to publish such a story in early Victorian Britain (to say nothing of doing so as a female author).

But I also wrote that she didn't write it in such a way that really grabbed me personally-- and that part is true for me. Basically, for me to find such kinds of stories really interesting, the author either has to come across to me as a natural psychologist gifted with pretty keen insight, or even better, gifted with real wisdom. And I didn't feel very much of either quality with Emily Bronte. I could elaborate further; but it's idiosyncratic to myself, obviously not some universal voice.

Anyway, I took advantage of the last line of your post and used it as a segue to clarify something that I wrote earlier, because I don't want to be misunderstood as condemning Emily Bronte or her work by any who might be following or participating in this discussion. It's just a personal thang on my part, basically.

[kellyjane]

Cemre, it's often unclear to me whose particular comment you're responding to. In this case, you asked several questions in your last post-- but are they meant for me? kallie? mochaspresso? Are they general questions meant for anyone?

I'll assume that they're meant for me, since they followed a post of mine. First I'll answer them directly and in order.

"As ı've said WH was probably not intended to be a realistic story. You cannot judge Cathy and Heathcliff's love (not a relationship) by 21st century relationship science.

I'm not judging Cathy and Heathcliff's love so much as drawing conclusions about certain psychological qualities. In the twenty-first century we have new words and terms and concepts to use in talking about those qualities-- but the qualities themselves have existed for a very long time in human history. And yes I do believe that these qualities are less than ideal (in the past no less than today), and yes I do believe that they arise from various causes and reasons, and yes I do believe that there is value in trying to understand them. I don't believe that anyone is obligated to consider the story in light of any of the above; but on the other hand, I don't believe that there is anything wrong with doing it either. And yes they are qualities depicted in a work of literature rather than in a documentary for example; but in my opinion that does not make the work of literature 'off limits' for any certain ways of reading it.

"What's wrong with author being ambiguous? ... This is a novel written for adults and the author doesn't owe us any moral education.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong at all with writing a morally ambiguous book. But of course it doesn't mean that I will find every morally ambiguous story interesting though. And I agree that the story doesn't owe us any moral education. I don't think that it 'owes' us anything at all. Nor for that matter do I owe it, or its passionate fans, any particular experience or understanding of it. I am simply expressing my own outlook independent of, and without reference to, that of any other reader including yours. I don't disparage or lament your outlook-- in fact I compliment it. That you deeply connect with this story seems to me something worthwhile and positive. And if someone were to ask what about Wuthering Heights is interesting, I wouldn't hesitate to send them your way, because you speak of it with the light of inspired attention and understanding. I think that that's worth something Cemre, even if I don't share your wavelength for this particular story.

"I think you forget that this is literature. I understand Cathy and Heathcliff's love. While "romantic" isn't the right word to describe it, ı wouldn't call it bad or toxic either. It makes sense in the context. I think Cathy has made the wrong choice by marrying Edgar."

Rest assured that I haven't forgotten that it's a piece of literature. I just believe that I can follow the guidance of my own personal interests and inclinations in reading it. Yes of course I can. And in my personal approach, I'm not so interested in passing judgment upon their relationship, or assigning a grade or even a descriptor to it. I'm more interested in the individuals involved in it, and the qualities that they find within themselves to express, and the qualities that they do not find within themselves to express, and how if possible to understand these things. For better or worse, the psychology of the individual very often grabs my primary interest in what I read (although actually I read stories for other reasons too).

Anyway, Wuthering Heights is the kind of story that I definitely read with the psychological angle at the forefront. And for me personally, lamentable as it might be that I had this experience, I just didn't find it especially compelling in that regard. I don't care about the morals portrayed in the story; the psychology, for me, was kind of ho-hum as written ....

[kellyjane]

"As ı've said, this is not a realistic story, so the fact that you don't see people like Heathcliff and Cathy everyday doesn't matter, they make sense in the book's context."

I agree that Heathcilff and Cathy, and their love and their relationship, all make sense in the context of the story as it was written. It doesn't mean that I find any of it particularly compelling according to my personal interests; but yes it all makes sense in context.

When I wrote the response about love and psychodynamics and blah blah blah, please note that I was responding to a general question about whether love is ever bad, not a specific question about Heathcliff and Cathy. Some of what I wrote may have pertinence to Heathcliff in that he does seem a candidate for mixing love together with some pretty primitive psychological constructions; but the response was nonetheless to a more general question.

And just to ask, does a story itself really need to be 'realistic' in order to consider the characters within it in terms meaningfully human?

[kellyjane]

I'm going to follow your example for this post and not bother copying/pasting what you just wrote, to spare myself that task, since you know that it's meant for you anyway.

When I say 'primitive psychological constructions', I'm really referring to diagnostic categories in professional psychology along with ways of understanding those categories. For example, let's say that Heathcliff could spring from the pages of Wuthering Heights and find himself sitting across from a psychologist enduring a comprehensive psychological intake evaluation. It's likely that he would be diagnosed as having some pretty basic and debilitating 'psychological disorders'. In essence, personality development in his case probably was sabotaged at a very young age, and subsequently was extremely undernourished through the remainder of his formative years. His personality was organically 'constructed' to cope with his environment as best could be managed, defend his overall sense of self from repetitive emotional injuries as best could be managed, and preserve what was precious and vital within himself as best could be managed, based on a number of natural and environmental factors. And in Heathclff's case, that 'construction' probably was pretty primitive-- probably, largely defensive rather than expansive psychological functioning was necessary at way too early an age, as indicated by his narcissistic cruelty and sadism and the profoundly antisocial elements of his adult personality. He was a mess; and it seems understandable.

Yet his love had value, and so did Cathy's, and their love for each other had real value to each of them. Indeed their love almost seemed lifelines for each other in an otherwise cold and tumultuous ocean of disregard from just about everyone else in their worlds. From a human perspective, it was precious because real; but the great shame is that both were so limited in expressing it fully because other things within their personalities, like anchors, were weighing down their capacities for recognizing and expressing the lights within themselves. The defenses protected those lights from further harm, but in doing so made them remote from access.

Or something along these lines anyway. I have to go to bed right now, but will check in tomorrow.

[Kallie]

kellyjane wrote: "Yet his love had value, and so did Cathy's, and their love for each other had real value to each of them. Indeed their love almost seemed lifelines for each other in an otherwise cold and tumultuous ocean of disregard from just about everyone else in their worlds. From a human perspective, it was precious because real; but the great shame is that both were so limited in expressing it fully because other things within their personalities, like anchors, were weighing down their capacities for recognizing and expressing the lights within themselves. The defenses protected those lights from further harm, but in doing so made them remote from access. ..."

Well said, and the basis for tragic romance to this day. I am reminded of 'Jesus' Son,' for example, though in that novel we are told nothing about the couple's origins.

[kellyjane]

kallie, would you recommend that book (Jesus' Son that is)?

[Kallie]

kellyjane wrote: "kallie, would you recommend that book (Jesus' Son that is)?"

I have read it several times. It's my favorite Denis Johnson book and to me perfectly renders the seedy, wild Seventies. The language is brilliant and poetic. If you haven't read Denis Johnson you will certainly know whether or not his work is for you if you read 'Jesus' Son.'

[kellyjane]

kallie wrote: "I have read it several times. It's my favorite Denis Johnson book and to me perfectly renders the seedy, wild Seventies. The language is brilliant and poetic. If you haven't read Denis Johnson you will certainly know whether or not his work is for you if you read 'Jesus' Son.'"

Thanks kallie. It sounds like something that I'd love to try. I intend to keep my eye out for it.

[Karen]

Nat wrote: "P&P. I read Wuthering Heights being much younger and I don't have so clear memories of it, but what I remember is that it was all very tragic and intense.
What I like the most about Pride and Preju..."

I wish there was a like button

[Sindy]

I'm a hopeless romantic. so hands down P&P wins.

[Sarah]

Pride and Prejudice all the way. I found Wuthering Heights to be much less interesting although I enjoyed its darkness. Also, I think I prefer Austen's writing style- it's very nice without being too much, which I feel is the problem with WH sometimes.

[Kashish]

I absolutely love pride and prejudice ! Though no doubt Wuthering Heights was well written too.