ŷ������

followed bunny here...

go jackie go! i like the book, mind you - but only recently got into yet another frustrating discussion with someone ( a guy) who says it is "romantic" - that it's about deep & abiding love. aaarrrgh.

granted - i think it's more than spite & malice - i think it's profoundly psychological, blah blah blah. but i love your brief dismissal of the notion of Heath & Cathy as high romance.

I hated this book. I don't see what's so "classic" about it. I could write a better book then that.

I think that it is creepy that he is so into Catherine but I do think is romantic in this really dark way. These are two people that are really hateful but they do love each other in this weird and crazy way.
I respect your opinion and I can see why people wouldn't like this book.

this book gave me the creeps -- i don't call it romance -- i call it domestic abuse

Cathy and Heathcliff are supposed to be "the most unforgettable lovers of all tme" I found them to be masochistic.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates this book. I consider myself well read and do like classics but I cannot read more than 2 pages of this book in a sitting. I hate the characters immensely. I am giving up on this book and will not feel guilty in doing so.

There is a hidden passion that is hiding inside the pages. The passion that arises when Heathcliff and Catherine are together. From childhood, they can't be separated. They understand each other and love only each other. The world is nothing and was nothing until they found each other.

"so he shall never know how I love him: and that, not because he's handsome, Nelly, but because he's more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same" This quote explains the feelings she can't express to the man she loves (wasn't it illegal to marry the person you were brought up with), so instead, she rots from inside. She rots because because she is not a full person. Heathcliff rots because he is not a full person. They are both split and cannot seem find a way to attach back together, like how they were attached when they were children.

Now, I know she and Heathcliff were horrible and not likable, but that is the point. I felt like this was a message to the readers. Here are two people who are supposed to go through life together, as lovers, but the cruelty of the world separated them and now they will have to live even though they are dead inside. How can you be alive when a vital organ is missing? It's like going through life with half a heart. You cannot function like a normal person. It's impossible. That is why they were horrible, they were broken.

You know that feeling that something is missing in your heart? Something or someone is not by your side and you start feeling like you are not whole. ...and you start getting agitated and Impatient....like waiting for someone that won't come....ever!

This novel shows how unfair life can be, how good people turn into bad peopl by child abuse, how people become bitter and cold by jealousy and revenge. How people start to really act like they don't have full hearts because they really don't.....

Some might roll their eyes at this and say melodrama! But I find this novel to be true to every person's broken heart.

Not being able to touch and feel the person you most love in this world can destroy you. From inside out.

I think Emliy Bronte wrote a novel that desribes the hidden depth of the human emotion. I respect her. I respect this novel. I think she was a brilliant writer and observer.

Jackie, if this is your conclusion on the book, I think you have really missed to point. You are supposed to see what life is really about with the bad things that could have with love and your status in wealth. Status seems to be the problem with some love stories. All I can say is that you totally missed the point of this love story.

I'm not sure where (though I'm sure Twiilght gets some of the blame) ANYone got the idea that this book was supposed to be "romantic."

People confuse the genre of the book- 19th century romanticism, with romance. They think it's supposed to be a love story- it's actually a story about generations of child abuse.

Yefim wrote: "People confuse the genre of the book- 19th century romanticism, with romance. They think it's supposed to be a love story- it's actually a story about generations of child abuse."

Not just child abuse. What Heathcliff does to Isabella, as dramatized (I thought) particularly well by the 1992 film version, is spousal abuse.

Yes, but his own character, as well as his obsession with Cathy are the product of their abusive upbringing by Hindley, which then translates into his abuse of Hareton and his own son. Which actually corresponds to modern research about people who were abused as children being more likely to become abusers themselves.

you know the book was good itself .the story was strong.but the reason why most of ppl hate it ,is that charachters are not lovely.almost all of them are mean,idiot,selfish,... u just cant love them.thats why.and also I didnt like the narration .it could be better why Nelly should narrate all of those details to a stranger barely knows!and the stranger mr lockwood didnt do anything effective in the story

Mina wrote: "you know the book was good itself .the story was strong.but the reason why most of ppl hate it ,is that charachters are not lovely.almost all of them are mean,idiot,selfish,... u just cant love the..."

The idea that characters have to be "lovely" or "likable" (except for one or two completely over-the-top villains for people to hate with no reservations) is really annoying (and shallow IMO), but that seems to be what people expect these days, so a lot of people are going to miss out on a lot of the really great literature. Better to stick with chick lit and romances.

But this is not a romantic tale. This is a tale of the darkest side of human nature.

I agree with Sutapa. I think people are missing the point of this book.

finally someone who dares to say what we all think about this book =)

I've never managed to connect with this book but I did read a really interesting take on it recently. The reviewer pointed out that the majority of the story is told by Nelly Dean, and that she clearly doesn't like Heathcliff at all. So to what extent is she a reliable narrator? Is it possible that she's putting the worst possible interpretation on events because she's a snob who resents Heathcliff for seeking to rise above his station, and we're meant to see through that? Interesting take. Almost enough to make me want to read it again and look for clues. Almost.

Bunny wrote: "I've never managed to connect with this book but I did read a really interesting take on it recently. The reviewer pointed out that the majority of the story is told by Nelly Dean, and that she cle..."

She is definitely an unreliable narrator, and her prejudices cloud most of what we hear, even if she isn't actively lying or malicious. There is also a theory that literally makes Nelly the "villain" of the piece. She does several things (including withholding information) that drive the plot, often in a negative direction. The ones I can think of specifically are when she doesn't tell Cathy that Heathcliff is there while Cathy is making her great confession, and when she leaves Edgar in the dark about how ill Cathy is after her hunger strike.

Yup, that sounds like the same sort of thing as the review I read. It makes the book seem a little more interesting really, looking at it from that perspective.

Although looking at the Quora piece that's not really the same. I mean the quora discusses whether she's the villain of the story who causes the harms and problems. The review I read didn't cast her as the villain driving the plot, it questioned whether the events actually occurred as she said they did, or whether there were clues that she was at the least mistaken about some of the things she said happened, or at least about the motivations she ascribed to people.

Bunny wrote: "Although looking at the Quora piece that's not really the same. I mean the quora discusses whether she's the villain of the story who causes the harms and problems. The review I read didn't cast he..."

That particular theory just came to mind while I was reading your comment. I know they're two different things, though they both kind of depend on the idea that we're seeing things from her point of view, which by definition is biased, whether you consider her malicious or merely mistaken or prejudiced. Interestingly, I was just reading an essay about how the narratives in Frankenstein (which uses the same type of framing - stories within stories within stories, all told from specific points of view) are similarly problematic. :)

That IS interesting!

It's not a romance novel in the sense that you mean ...Wuthering Heights is a family saga and is an example of Gothic Romanticism. Romanticism, rather than implying perfect love, in a literary sense refers to concepts like being tied to the land (the moors), giving acknowledgement to the animalism in humor nature as well as higher virtue, as well as dealing with subjective rather than "objective" (current socially accepted) ethics/morality and art, and passionate inspiration. It's a black comedy, a study of child abuse, racism, and sexism, as well as a study of the irrationality that can and ultimately does accompany sexual pair bonding. When people think this is a romance novel...I just...

Christi wrote: "It's not a romance novel in the sense that you mean ...Wuthering Heights is a family saga and is an example of Gothic Romanticism. Romanticism, rather than implying perfect love, in a literary sens..."

Thank you. I can't help but think that there are a lot of people (maybe high school English teachers who aren't well versed in that period or just want to make it sound interesting, at least to teenage girls) who have a lot to answer for.

Finally someone who doesn't like it. All the people around me are in love with this book. I can't understand it ether how people could call it a "love" book.

If you are looking for a romance, Wuthering Heights should not be what you read. I did not know myself until I had to read it for school, and it upsets me when people praise it as the romance of all times, when it is not supposed to be a romance at all.

Madam Librarian: You seem to have a fan club at this site but I could not locate an actual review of the Bronte novel. Was it a part of an attachment that was deleted or is it just too much trouble to qualify your extreme distaste for a novel that has gained 30,000 reviews at this site and stood the test of time for 175 years. No book is for everyone but quite by contrast, many who do endorse the novel at this site have made a point to carefully explain why.

Quo wrote: "Madam Librarian: You seem to have a fan club at this site but I could not locate an actual review of the Bronte novel. Was it a part of an attachment that was deleted or is it just too much trouble..."

I've noticed that the people who agree with this reviewer are having their own little discussion, completely ignoring all the very good commentary given by those who are trying to explain why they're getting it wrong. (Not that it isn't completely within their rights to dislike the book - just don't do it for the wrong reasons or portray it as as something it was never meant to be.) Obviously they don't want to hear any different viewpoint, let alone engage with it, as we have been trying to do with them.

Does anyone else see the simularities between...
Heathcliff = Snape (attitude, personality)
Heathcliff and Cathryn = Snape and Lily (haunted by a - dead- love unfulfilled)
Heathcliff and Cathy/Hareton = Snape and Harry (caring for a child because it was a part of the person he loved)

Christine wrote: "Does anyone else see the simularities between...
Heathcliff = Snape (attitude, personality)
Heathcliff and Cathryn = Snape and Lily (haunted by a - dead- love unfulfilled)
Heathcliff and Cathy/Hare..."

This was intentional on Rowling's part. 🙂

This is like reading Frankenstein and getting angry that it’s not romantic. I agree with one of the comments earlier that said “when people think this is a romance novel I just...�� Did we read the same book girl? Wuthering Heights is a tale of revenge, not a love story.

A one star review often says more about the reviewer than the book reviewed. Thankfully, there are still Harlequin Romances for those who find the Bronte sisters much too potent.

“finally someone who dares to say what we all think about this book =)�� Wow there’s a few other dumb asses in the world who don’t like this book. You guys should start a fan club

i read the book and never saw it as romance tbh...i think it's not supposed to be romantic at all. we saw the story through nelly's eyes, so we can see how twisted the story is and never romanticize it.

I see where you’re coming from, but I also think it was never intended to be a romance book. This book is about revenge and pain, not romance.

It's different, realistic, and refreshing. I loved it.

So strange that you would bring the assumption that this is supposed to be a good romance to the book and then judge it for failing to meet your expectation. Read it for what it is. Then you can judge it reasonably...

It's definitely not romantic. It's about very primal and depraved love, which is why it's both classic and has mixed reviews.

You can’t give one star because it’s not what you expected. Sorry but if you weren’t able to LOOK UP the book before reading and find out it’s not some mushy romance then it’s all on you��

I LOVED this book, I loved this book so much that I’m here reading bad reviews about it because I like to ruin things for myself. Is life-destroying not dramatic�� by definition? I understand that you maybe didn’t like this book because you went into it expecting romance, but I don’t understand how you didn’t think it dramatic enough.

take librarian out of your name you shouldn’t be allowed near a book ever again

It's...not a romance. IT'S NOT A ROMANCE.

I love this book, and it's a dramatic literary soap opera, and it's very sad book but a good book to read for those who love this time period

Im half way through this book and all of the characters are annoying but none more than Cathy and her temper tantrums