should I read Wuthering Heights? Always struck me as a book for old ladies

should I read Wuthering Heights? Always struck me as a book for old ladies

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every classic novel written by woman is boringer than hell. They have good prose on a technical level, but their choice of subjects, themes, focus of interest are nauseatingly circuitous. If you want to try reading about the tempestuous emotions of Mr. Bingerbottom and the Lady of Wickhamstonshire, go ahead and report back.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Read Middlemarch, enjoyed it, thanks.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Middlemarch carries all the hallmarks of toxic femininity. The young woman chooses the old scholar, realizes she didn't know what she wanted, then blames the old scholar for her plight that her own actions landed her in. Then, since it's a female author, she learns no lessons and gets a happy ending anyway.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Her realisation is that she’s married a buffoon. She was made to believe by Causabon that she’d be spending her days contributing to a great theological work but instead became a glorified secretary for something unfinishable and already outdated. Also her “happy ending” came at the expense of a comfortable life and many social connections. I’d say it leans more towards toxic masculinity than femininity if anything.

          • 2 weeks ago
            sage

            >Everything is other people's fault even though she pushes ahead when people advise her not to
            Um, ok

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            This perfectly encapsulates female thinking though and you're crazy if you think Eliot wasn't aware of this.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Is there a reason for this? I've tried reading female romance classics before and am literally almost bored to death before the end of the first paragraph.

      They just ... refuse to involve anything in the descriptions of both the characters and objects around them except in terms of how so-and-so feels about who-the-frick-cares. Jane Austen is the least boring female author I've come across.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >They have good prose on a technical level, but their choice of subjects, themes, focus of interest are nauseatingly circuitous.
    Post your examples of novels where the author's choice of subjects, themes, focus of interest is not nauseatingly circuitous.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Moby Dick

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, it's an excellent book even if it follows the rhythmic pitfalls of novels written by women. I don't think anger and hatred has ever been depicted so well in the written word. Certain passages of Heathcliff's feel like they burn through the page with their intensity

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I skimmed it in order to write an essay for someone once and what I read was enjoyable. Also, remember to always ignore people who sperg about 'prose.'

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >should I read Wuthering Heights?
    No

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >should I read Wuthering Heights?
    yes, give the first 60 pages a go.
    >Always struck me as a book for old ladies
    Emily Bronte was enough of an autist to deserve a special place in your library specifically. also, Wuthering Heights is not in the same niche of Pride and Prejudice or Emma at all, so no. it's for both men and women within the age bracket of 25 to 45.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Excellent book. I say this as an amateur reader who listened to it while tractor driving. I often hear it mentioned in the same breath as Pride and Predjudice, which it most certainly does not deserve, as mentioned. Wuthering Heights has great characters you feel intense emotions for while not being frustating (I felt an intense hatred for Jane Eyre the character which I felt was not intended). The environment of the moors also intrigued me to the point of making me want to travel there some time in the no-so-distant future.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >an amateur reader who listened to it
        rofl

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >tractor driver
        Based
        >listening
        Unbased and gay.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Austen#Genre_and_style
      tldr Austen being ""boring"" is a conscious artistic choice, it's not just because it was le old timey days

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’m still half way through but it is very good and I dont really like female authors. The dialogue is excellent.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's feminine hysterics translated into novel form.
    The only thing it has to teach is that women can't regulate emotions.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This isn’t a Madame Bovary thread.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        MB is positively tranquil compared to WH.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "As a general rule," wrote the French physician Auguste Fabre in 1883, "all women are hysterical and . . . every woman carries with her the seeds of hysteria. Hysteria, before being an illness, is a temperament, and what constitutes the temperament of a woman is rudimentary hysteria."

      The classics for that are
      Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre (1847)
      Wilkie Collins's The Woman in White (1860)
      Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper (1892)

      and there is the recent big hit
      Victoria Mas's, The Mad Women’s Ball (2019)
      (as well as others)

      In 2021, Octavia Bright wrote a piece "Why we still love reading about ‘mad’ women" (she didn't really have an answer other than she seemed upset about it like that's just how we love women)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Addressing the wild popularity of Emily Brontë (Sylvia Plath is the only other woman writer as popular) as exasperated Oxford grad Kathryn Hughes (doctorate in Victorian history and author of The Victorian Governess and George Eliot: The Last Victorian) wrote a 2018 piece for the Guardian...

        where, despite Wuthering Heights, being widely considered to be one of the greatest novels ever written in English, she concluded:
        >"no matter how many literary critics point out how cleverly it is crafted, nothing will convince me that Wuthering Heights is anything but a hot mess. But the fact that it exists at all, written in such unpromising circumstances by a woman who was convinced of her right to produce it, has a certain magnificence. Emily Brontë is the patron saint of difficult women. For that alone, she is to be admired"

        She based that on:
        >This, after all, is the girl who was rought up at a time when the daughters of poor clergy were expected to squeeze themselves into tiny spaces dictated by other people’s needs – as caregivers to elderly relatives, as governesses to the young, as the harried wives of impoverished curates – she simply refused to comply. While her sisters trudged out to work as governesses and hated nearly every minute of it, Emily lasted just six months as a schoolteacher, souring the mood irrevocably when she told her pupils that she was fonder of the house dog than she was of them. She also, and this seems like the final touch of unpleasantness, became testy with her sisters when they dared to complain about the awfulness of having to earn their keep by living with strangers.

        >Having talked (or rather, not talked – she used silence to bully) her way out of paid employment, Brontë contrived to return to where she had wanted to be all along – at home in Haworth. Despite there being two servants to look after the modestly sized parsonage and one modestly sized parson, Emily made a case for needing to be onsite as an extra housekeeper. And to offset her lack of income, she became an expert financial investor, studying newspapers to ensure that the family’s modest savings were placed in the best-performing railway stocks. She was cannily alert, too, to the way that the literary market worked. When the Brontës’ first book, a joint collection of poetry, sold only a handful of copies, she was quick to turn to the much more profitable genre of fiction, in the same way that Plath self-consciously set out to write a “potboiler” of a novel – The Bell Jar – as a break from the slow and thankless business of trying to sell her verse.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          kek, she was a NEET incel b***h? And people praise her for this?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >she was a NEET incel b***h?
            Yes, and this is based.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymouṡ

          Stupid modern feminists are so annoying it's beyond belief.

          This cow's thesis is basically:

          * Wuthering Heights is rubbish.

          * BUT

          * Emily Bronte was stubborn and selfish.

          * THEREFORE

          * She is to be praised (because stubborn selfishness is automatically admirable in women.)

          * Because, you know, muh patriarchy or something.

          Could you be any wronger and remain on the planet? Emily Bronte is admirable because she was a genius and what she wrote was magnificent. If what she wrote had been rubbish, she would have been a stupid worthless cow. Like Kathryn Hughes.

          (I'm not surprised that KH doesn't get WH. There are no novels that tap more directly into what makes human beings tick. When you're cut off from any sort of emotional honesty by seven layers of crazy ideology, no, you aren't going to understand a book like that. I bet KH thinks that Moby Dick is overrated and The Taming of the Shrew is an "unfortunate product of its time".)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no no, that chick is old fashioned, hence why she got her PhD in Victorian History. Since wrote a book on the Victorian Governess, she respected the other two Bronte sisters, who
            >While her sisters trudged out to work as governesses and hated nearly every minute of it, Emily lasted just six months as a schoolteacher, souring the mood irrevocably when she told her pupils that she was fonder of the house dog than she was of them. She also, and this seems like the final touch of unpleasantness, became testy with her sisters when they dared to complain about the awfulness of having to earn their keep by living with strangers.

            She also added
            >Victorian women choosing to duck the demands of domestic life to spend their time doing something they enjoyed is hardly a novel idea. Florence Nightingale and Elizabeth Barrett Browning used invalidism as a way to carve out time, space and mental freedom so that they could get on with reforming the Indian army and writing lyric verse respectively. The difference here is that Nightingale and Barrett were both from wealthy households that could easily afford the extra labour involved in supporting an adult woman in expensive, non-productive seclusion. The family at the (Bronte) parsonage enjoyed no such financial elasticity, which makes Emily Brontë’s insistence on the right to abandon her economic obligations all the more audacious.

            She specifically says you wouldn't like Emily Bronte the person
            >were we to meet her, we would not like her. And that, really, is the point. In the place of Emily Brontë the wuthery maiden of the moors, we need to put Emily Brontë the ruthlessly self-defined artist.

            As you can see, she also wrote a book on George Eliot, a rival of Emily Bronte. Since she is pro-Eliot another reason she doesn't like Emily Bronte is because Emily Bronte is the one that is more popular today
            >George Eliot, who was one of the few women to make Leavis’s lineup, may be admired, but she is hardly worshipped in the same way as Brontë. Next year is Eliot’s bicentenary, yet it’s hard to imagine the Unthanks offering to come up with a tune (like they are doing for Emily Bronte)

            the subtitle of her piece was:
            >Brontë was no romantic child of nature but a pragmatic, self-interested Tory. Why is she still adored for her ‘screeching melodrama’ of a novel?

            She used another example of how Bronte was selfish when
            >For four brief months in 1842 she was employed to give piano lessons to three sisters by the name of Wheelwright
            >what Laetitia (Wheelwright) experienced was a cold, enduring “dislike” towards an adult woman (Emily Bronte) who put her own needs above those of the children she was paid to teach. This Emily Brontë – self-interested, pragmatic and stonily indifferent to her moral responsibilities

            Finally, her conclusion was:
            >Emily Brontë is the patron saint of difficult women. For that alone, she is to be admired, if only grudgingly and from a safe distance.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This woman doesn't cite any sources or letters to corroborate her claims. Emily's sister Anne wrote the following in a diary paper on 30th July 1841

            "We are now all separate ... and are all doing something for our own livelihood except Emily who however is as busy as any of us and in reality earns her food and raiment as much as we do"

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Always struck me as a book for old ladies
    Same here probably because it sounds like "withering" and nobody using the word "Wuthering" anymore (wind that is blowing very strongly or a place where the wind blows strongly)

    But it's the name of a remote farmhouse in the bleak Yorkshire moorland where the book takes place. It's 19th century gothic literature (along with stuff like Poe's The Fall of the House of Usher, Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables, Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray)

    this is how the critics at the time responded to it:

    Graham's Lady Magazine (published from 1840 to 1858) wrote: "How a human being could have attempted such a book as the present without committing suicide before he had finished a dozen chapters, is a mystery. It is a compound of vulgar depravity and unnatural horrors"

    Douglas Jerrold: "In Wuthering Heights the reader is shocked, disgusted, almost sickened...The women in the book are of a strange fiendish-angelic nature,..and terrible"

    Dante Gabriel Rossetti referred to it as "a fiend of a book – an incredible monster ... The action is laid in hell"

    The Examiner wrote "This is a strange book..and the people who make up the drama, which is tragic enough in its consequences, are savages ruder than those who lived before the days of Homer."

    And it was called "strange" by
    >The Altas (published 1826 to 1869)
    >The American Whig Review (published 1844 to 1852)

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are we pretending you didn't make this same thread yesterday?

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's trash. Typical love triangle between abhorrently terrible characters. When the landscape/setting is the best thing about a novel, you know it's pretty bad.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Brown hands typed this

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You think brown people read Wuthering Heights? Quit obsessing over race you schizo.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every library is a great library so long as it does not contain Wuthering Heights. Even if it contains no other book.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's worth reading alone for how it interweaves the complex stories of three different generations...no other book I've read has done this better...It doesn't flinch to convey some extremely violent emotions either, which again, few books I've read on the same level. If you're not ready to handle this sort of thing don't bother reading it.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I never understood how to pronounce "Wuthering", but it's a very good book. Some moronic gays above have said it is trash, but they probably haven't even read it since they h have the attention span of a 3 year old. It definitely isn't the best romantic book, but I guess you could call it a low-budget Anna Karenina.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Woot Herring

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Please yes read it. It is so horrible, it is like such a perfectly terrible depiction of people destroying themselves. Just about every character dies either physically, morally or spiritually in such a grotesque way. Emily was also autistic which helps me like it more. The theme of overcoming generational trauma is incredible too

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Am I dumb if I found this hard to read? The characters were so unlikable it felt like the later seasons of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia where nobody is likeable, and I found the writing style contrived and drab, with no real economy of words. I know it's meant to be that way but I just couldn't pay attention. I'm not sure why rich people being jerks is supposed to be this endless mine for literature.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's no endless mine for literature, but it's definitely a bloody pick axe compared to the daisy daffodil writing of her peers. Do you really need characters that are likeable? I don't like anyone but the way Heathcliff is described and his thoughts about the afterlife are cool imo

  17. 2 weeks ago
    YWNBAW

    I became even more mysogynist after reading that crap, wömen cannot write.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    “Go to the Deuce!” even the gate over which he leant manifested no sympathising movement to the words

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Horny old ladies I guess

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Picking this up based on this thread. Sounds interesting enough. I always thought it was "people going to each other's house" core. If it's a bunch of heated arguments and people acting like dipshits, that could be more entertaining I suppose. Currently a third of the way through Middlemarch and it's a snoozefest, so I may just switch over.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I went into it with similar expectations as you, fully expecting to be bored out of my mind, but I ended up really liking it. Good prose, compelling characters and a great message. Definitely worth a read.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like it. The structure of the book alone is very competent. It weaves together the past and present of 3 generations told through two narrators over several years. Sometimes it's one narrator speaking from a 1st hand point of view, sometimes it's the other narrator, and sometimes it's one narrator narrating the story as told by the other narrator. The way it jumps between narrators and time frames filters a lot of people, but it's interesting discovering the story and how all the pieces fit together.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wuthering Heights is the name of Mr. Heathcliff’s dwelling. “Wuthering” being a significant provincial adjective, descriptive of the atmospheric tumult to which its station is exposed in stormy weather. Pure, bracing ventilation they must have up there at all times, indeed: one may guess the power of the north wind, blowing over the edge, by the excessive slant of a few stunted firs at the end of the house; and by a range of gaunt thorns all stretching their limbs one way, as if craving alms of the sun. Happily, the architect had foresight to build it strong: the narrow windows are deeply set in the wall, and the corners defended with large jutting stones.

    Before passing the threshold, I paused to admire a quantity of grotesque carving lavished over the front, and especially about the principal door; above which, among a wilderness of crumbling griffins and shameless little boys, I detected the date “1500,” and the name “Hareton Earnshaw.” I would have made a few comments, and requested a short history of the place from the surly owner; but his attitude at the door appeared to demand my speedy entrance, or complete departure, and I had no desire to aggravate his impatience previous to inspecting the penetralium.

    One step brought us into the family sitting-room,...I distinguished a chatter of tongues, and a clatter of culinary utensils, deep within; and...Above the chimney were sundry villainous old guns, and a couple of horse-pistols...The floor was of smooth, white stone;...In an arch under the dresser reposed a huge, liver-coloured b***h pointer, surrounded by a swarm of squealing puppies; and other dogs haunted other recesses.

    The apartment and furniture would have been nothing extraordinary as belonging to a homely, northern farmer...But Mr. Heathcliff forms a singular contrast to his abode and style of living...I beheld his black eyes withdraw so suspiciously under their brows...He is a dark-skinned gipsy in aspect, in dress and manners a gentleman: that is, as much a gentleman as many a country squire:...he has an erect and handsome figure; and rather morose. Possibly, some people might suspect him of a degree of under-bred pride

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >geez heathclif what do you live in, some kind of wuthering heights

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've just finished it. It was not what I expected at all. It's vile, brutal and even macabre at parts. Its characters are some of the most repulsive I've come across but also perfect representations of mental illness and familial cycles of abuse, especially considering the time period it was written in. Even the setting and the atmosphere give off a constant feeling of uneasiness and decay. It's gothic psychological horror, not a romance novel by any means. It has more in common with a Poe story than Jane Austen. Go for it OP, it's one of those you either love it or loathe it books. I've enjoyed it a lot.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Exactly, you can tell when someone hasn't read it. For me it felt hyper-real, showing the extremities of human experience.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The scene where Lockwood enters Wuthering Heights for the first time and sees everybody miserable living together and spreading spite to each other is both so otherworldly and realistic at the same time. It reminded me a lot of my own family. It was when I knew I will really like the book going further.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah same. It feels absolutely true, but strange at the same time. The framing devices feed into the unreal hyper-reality, everything that happens is so immediate and raw, but it's being told third or fourth hand most of the time.

          I was also reminded of my own family and others I've come across. I think people who consider the nastiness unrealitic or gratuitous are either unobservant or very coddled. It's an amazing book.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            (same anon) you also immediately realise that Lockwood is naive and clueless, and he doesn't realise this himself in his own narration. It's a multi-layered observation of human shortcomings and caprice.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I am a man and I remember really liking this book when I read it when I was a teenager, however I don't remember anything from it which is really unusual, it's probably the only book that I've read and completely forgotten.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I read it as a teen and immensely disliked it but it was because of the annoying characters not because it was written by a wymmin and gave me cooties. I bet you gays would have a nice day if you ended up loving a book with an "anonymous" author only to later learn it was written by a woman. Your mothers are disappointed in you but I hope you at least treat them better, if only for the icky vegana you came out of.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I like reading things written by women since it kind of lets me get into their heads. That's not to say that their perspective is necessarily interesting or something, but it's different in some fundamentally indescribable way.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >dark, brooding borderline psychotic men
        >good
        >the man who treats you good
        >bad
        all you need to know

  27. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's a psychological drama about intergenerational trauma and borderline personality disorder. There's maybe a handful of pages of actual romance in the entire thing.

  28. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I always subscribed to the theory that Nelly was to blame for everything. The whole novel also depends on a bunch of weak, anime-tier plot contrivances (the bit where Heathcliff overhears Catherine talking shit but then leaves before he hears the good part that vindicates the bad). In fact, the whole thing is very much like an anime, hysterical, overblown, with 2deep4u chunni edginess (that bit where Heathcliff laments over saving Hindley's son instead of letting him fall to his death) and that would explain why the morons in this thread like it so much.

  29. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Where wilt thou go, my harassed heart—
    What thought, what scene invites thee now
    What spot, or near or far apart,
    Has rest for thee, my weary brow?

    There is a spot, 'mid barren hills,
    Where winter howls, and driving rain;
    But, if the dreary tempest chills,
    There is a light that warms again.

    The house is old, the trees are bare,
    Moonless above bends twilight's dome;
    But what on earth is half so dear—
    So longed for—as the hearth of home?

    The mute bird sitting on the stone,
    The dank moss dripping from the wall,
    The thorn-trees gaunt, the walks o'ergrown,
    I love them—how I love them all!

    Still, as I mused, the naked room,
    The alien firelight died away;
    And from the midst of cheerless gloom,
    I passed to bright, unclouded day.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      neat. is that a Bronte?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous
  30. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    HEATHCLIFF
    IT'S ME CATHY
    COME HOME
    I'M SO COLD
    LET ME IN YOUR WINDOW

  31. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *