I easily remember the first time I read Wuthering Heights. I began it right after I took my AP English first semester exam, and have considered the book my good luck charm ever since I received 98% on it. Maybe that's why its prose speaks to me more than Charlotte's. I love Jane Eyre and believe that it is overall better written, but when Emily's writing does surpass her sister's it's some of the best ever published in the English language. Take the "I am Heathcliff" soliloquy, for example - I am unable to read the passage just once. I have to reread it to marvel at the genius that constructed it.
The 1970's edition of Wuthering Heights I bought at a used bookstore in Wyoming has about ten critical essays at the back, including the famous C.P. Sanger one. After reading those at least three times each and at least 100 reviews on the internet, I've narrowed down how people interpret the book to three categories. I've also seen four movies versions, read up on the others, and feel very justified in defining them.
Interpretation #1: The "Sweet" Catherine Earnshaw
"Sweet" is in quotation marks because a) anyone who's read the book knows that it is not true, and b) I'm quoting a review I read online that actually had the nerve to call her that. "Scarlett O'Hara is Great!" was my second title choice because the two heroines are eerily similar. This interpretation is defined by a very sympathetic view of Catherine, accounting all the evil in the novel to Heathcliff, Hindley, Nelly Dean, Mr. Earnshaw, Edgar Linton, or a combination of the above. Unfortunately, all the movies (except the 1939 version, where Catherine's representation is one of the few accurate points) portray this, hence its popularity among those who have not read the book yet. I'm going to focus on the films, since that's where this is most prevalent.
Sometimes the actress playing Catherine is stuck with "Sweet" Catherine Earnshaw, no matter how accurate she wants to be to the book. Charlotte Riley in the 2009 television movie had most of her character's selfish lines absent from the script. This version is very interesting because the DVD box makes Heathcliff seem like a possessive monster, yet the screenwriters gave Tom Hardy quite a few tragic, sympathetic lines that he took advantage of. People unfamiliar with the story would probably give the "antagonist" title to Nelly Dean or Hindley, whom the screenwriters didn't seem to like as much as the main characters.
Other times this is the fault of the actress. Juliette Binoche in the 1992 movie had lines where she could show the audience Catherine's vindictiveness, but spoke them like she was a victim of some sort of . . . nothing. If she had uttered them with a bit more selfishness they would've made more sense. Interpretation #1 was heightened by Ralph Fiennes, who, despite doing a wonderful job showing Heathcliff's cruelty, failed to show his tragic, sympathetic side between the first half hour and last five minutes of the film. On the other hand, he made a great Lord Voldemort. Actually, the only difference between Voldy and Heathcliff in the second half of the movie was the presence of a nose. (I'll probably get a few flames from that, but my mom perceived it the same way.)
This also seems to have a surprising following in modern critical essays, probably from people who saw the movies before they read the book, thus tainting their reading of it. Most appropriately, essays following "Sweet" Catherine Earnshaw don't have many supporting book quotes.
Interpretation #2: Wuthering Heights Sucks
The title comes from one of its basic tenants: rarely do people with this theory like the book. The few places you'll find it advocated by someone who doesn't are in older critical essays and a few contemporary (i.e. from when it was first published) reviews. More specifically, this interpretation finds both Catherine and Heathcliff completely unlikeable and annoying characters who are totally unrelatable and made for each other because they're so horrible. Google "most annoying characters in literature" and read the first ten results. Many will list off Catherine and Heathcliff in words similar to what I used in the previous sentence.
Unlike "Sweet" Catherine Earnshaw, this one is actually rather plausible. For starters, it assumes the correct interpretation of Catherine's character, acknowledging her selfish desire to control both Heathcliff and Edgar, how she manipulates people to always get her own way, and her lack of understanding for anyone else's needs and desires.
The portrayal of Heathcliff is also partially correct. It ignores his depths and denies him much character development, but at least consistently understands part of his character. Heathcliff is very vengeful, cruel, manipulative, a wife-beater, and holds grudges. (He takes "My good opinion, once lost, is lost forever" to even greater lengths than Mr. Darcy!) But Interpretation #2 fails to understand what Tvtropes calls the "Start of Darkness," the character development which defines exactly why someone became a villain. Heathcliff is much more complex and more sympathetic when you take into account how Hindley demoted him to servant, Catherine constantly rebuked the results of his degradation, his one love married for money instead of love, and then, upon his return where he became filthy rich for the above mentioned one love, wanted to have him on a leash while keeping Edgar's money. It doesn't excuse what he ended up doing, but he becomes (another Tvtropes term) a woobie that is far more likeable.
People who ascribe to this may like a minor character in the novel and put up with the annoying main characters for him. Hareton seems surprisingly popular, maybe because he's played by Mr. Darcy in the 1998 version.
I can relate to this far more than "Sweet" Catherine Earnshaw, and would take it up if I didn't like Wuthering Heights so much and had a problem with the simple interpretation of Heathcliff. Still, I can understand where proponents of this one are coming from and don't condemn them like I do followers of Interpretation #1.
Interpretation #3: Draco In Leather Pants Heathcliff
I'm full of Tvtropes today, aren't I? Draco in Leather Pants is where a character's flaws are minimized and made more desirable by the fandom. The title may be a bit misleading because this doesn't always fit that definition, but is often accused of being that way by proponents of the above two interpretations because it takes a far more sympathetic view of Heathcliff than they usually do.
Sometimes it does, and that is a sub-interpretation of this called "'Sweet' Heathcliff" because it's basically #1 with the roles reversed. Just replace "Catherine" with "Heathcliff" and vice versa in the definition sentence of "Sweet" Catherine Earnshaw. It's pretty straightforward and not entirely justified in the novel, like the straight interpretation is.
That one (and it also happens to be the one with the most justification in the book) thinks of Catherine the same way Wuthering Heights Sucks does, but takes into account Heathcliff's full development and complexity also detailed under Interpretation #2. Beyond that, it splits the antagonist title between more characters. Catherine and Hindley are the main antagonist because they're the ones who first push forward the plot by their actions when they abuse Heathcliff and marry Edgar for unbelievably selfish reasons. Heathcliff's villainous actions are more numerous than theirs, but he is a secondary antagonist because his actions are reactionary to Catherine's and Hindley's. (He would become a main antagonist after he takes revenge on the second generation but his affection for Hareton redeems him in my mind, especially because Cathy and Linton are so-freaking-annoying that I can't hold his actions towards them against him.)
I don't believe there's enough evidence to consider Nelly Dean and Edgar antagonists, but nor are they protagonists. Edgar let Catherine step on him for most of their marriage and is as annoying as his daughter and nephew. I think every reader became enraged at Nelly when she said she would think about telling Cathy's father about Linton, and then walked straight to his room and told him. Most importantly, most of them don't actively move the plot enough to be anything but supporting characters.
Isabella Linton is probably portrayed the most positively and tragically in the book. I always thought she was stupid for marrying Heathcliff, though, and would use that word to describe her. Why else does she say that Heathcliff is really attached to Catherine and then elopes with him a week later? She does have some inferred negative points, too - the only explanation for Linton's spoiledness is her poor parenting. Like Edgar and Nelly Dean, she doesn't move the plot enough to be considered anything but a supporting character.
Wuthering Heights, then, doesn't really have a traditional hero. In my final Tvtropes term, I'm going to say it's a book where the main characters are villain protagonists, and it's wrong to look for classic heroes the way "Sweet" Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff twist the story to find. To properly understand Wuthering Heights the reader has to study the angles of the characters and see them more as complex human beings rather than stereotypes that poor literature has made us expect. That's one of the great things about the book - all the characters are developed enough that they seem realistic. Not one fits a simple cliche. Combined with the power of Emily Brontë's writing, I'm not surprised that such a well-developed book is my favorite.
Next Topic: Top Ten Old Nightwish songs
Listening To: "Wuthering Heights" by Pat Benatar, whose voice I like better than Kate Bush's. It's a song example of Interpretation #1.
Reading: I'm almost done with Book I of Paradise Lost
No comments:
Post a Comment