Scan barcode
Reviews
The Brontësaurus: An A-Z of Charlotte, Emily and Anne Brontë (and Branwell) by John Sutherland
laurenjpegler's review against another edition
3.0
As guessed by the name, this is a sort of thesaurus dedicated to the Brontës. It takes certain phrases, themes and concepts from the family and their work in order to A) make sense of them or B) introduce new arguments. This was a decent read, and has planted new concepts into my mind. I'll definitely look out for some of Sutherland's arguments when re-reading the Brontë novels. Although some of his arguments I had already thought/read about before, I was introduced to a lot of new readings. I would definitely recommend this if you're interested in this deeper reading kind-of thing.
There were some issues with the text though. Firstly, at times, I felt it was a little snobbish (I think that's fair to say?). Although he allowed room for speculation and disagreement from the reader, it also felt like it was his way or no way. What he says goes, and you're wrong to disagree. I'm not sure if this was just me, or if this is a universal feeling, but it was a little discomforting and annoying at times. I want the writer to be distance from what he's saying, not forcing his points onto the reader. Additionally, he seemed to simplify a lot of complex themes and ideas found in the Brontë novels. The entries didn't have to be as short as they did, and he definitely could have expanded on some of his points. He definitely could have argued different sides of his claims, but he chose to only incorporate his own.
I also didn't like his treatment of Anne and Branwell. Firstly, why is Branwell's name in brackets? What is that supposed to mean? He isn't as serious as his sisters? Isn't worthy of being explored, but put in to pacify some readers? He is just as important as the three sisters, and deserved more than an 'Opium' entry. Ugh. Secondly, Sutherland sorely neglected Anne. Apparently, she is destined to be the forgotten one. Only two or three entries were dedicated to her, and then she disappeared. There are plenty of concepts in Anne's novels that could be explored further, but once again she is pushed to the side lines. Not cool. This should have been called The Brontësaurus: an A-Z of Charlotte and Emily (oh, and occasionally Anne and Branwell. But don't get your hopes up). Snooze.
Whereas I really liked some entries, a lot lacked worth. He, evidently, did a wealth of research, but he should have included that more. Tell me where the arguments came from, instead of just dropping them in randomly. Include a bibliography so I can check out some of your readings? Despite this rant I find myself on, Sutherland did make some interesting arguments - not only on topics I am already familiar with, but also new ones. He introduced me to quite a lot of new information! I definitely look at the texts a different way now.
I would recommend as it was insightful, but it wasn't my favourite read about the family.
There were some issues with the text though. Firstly, at times, I felt it was a little snobbish (I think that's fair to say?). Although he allowed room for speculation and disagreement from the reader, it also felt like it was his way or no way. What he says goes, and you're wrong to disagree. I'm not sure if this was just me, or if this is a universal feeling, but it was a little discomforting and annoying at times. I want the writer to be distance from what he's saying, not forcing his points onto the reader. Additionally, he seemed to simplify a lot of complex themes and ideas found in the Brontë novels. The entries didn't have to be as short as they did, and he definitely could have expanded on some of his points. He definitely could have argued different sides of his claims, but he chose to only incorporate his own.
I also didn't like his treatment of Anne and Branwell. Firstly, why is Branwell's name in brackets? What is that supposed to mean? He isn't as serious as his sisters? Isn't worthy of being explored, but put in to pacify some readers? He is just as important as the three sisters, and deserved more than an 'Opium' entry. Ugh. Secondly, Sutherland sorely neglected Anne. Apparently, she is destined to be the forgotten one. Only two or three entries were dedicated to her, and then she disappeared. There are plenty of concepts in Anne's novels that could be explored further, but once again she is pushed to the side lines. Not cool. This should have been called The Brontësaurus: an A-Z of Charlotte and Emily (oh, and occasionally Anne and Branwell. But don't get your hopes up). Snooze.
Whereas I really liked some entries, a lot lacked worth. He, evidently, did a wealth of research, but he should have included that more. Tell me where the arguments came from, instead of just dropping them in randomly. Include a bibliography so I can check out some of your readings? Despite this rant I find myself on, Sutherland did make some interesting arguments - not only on topics I am already familiar with, but also new ones. He introduced me to quite a lot of new information! I definitely look at the texts a different way now.
I would recommend as it was insightful, but it wasn't my favourite read about the family.
anniegroover's review against another edition
4.0
Loved it. Even though I'm a huge Brontë fan, and have even made the pilgrimage to Haworth this summer, I still learned a lot. Lots of laugh-out-loud spots too.
literarypengwyns's review against another edition
4.0
As someone who loves the Brontës and can’t get enough information about them, this book was a fun read! Sometimes it felt like the author wanted us to know how smart he was and it came off incredibly dry, but overall, each little section about an aspect of one of the Brontës’ lives were amazing! I learned quite a bit of new information not only about this family, but also the time period in which they lived! I highly recommend for anyone who is a fan of the Brontës.
eringow's review against another edition
4.0
I loved this, but then I love everything related to Jane Eyre and the Brontes. The short, humorous encyclopedic style makes for a quick read, but is fragmented enough that it would probably be deeply confusing for readers who don't have some familiarity with the subject.
josieruby1's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
4.25
I always go into bronte non fiction expecting not to really learn anything new but rather to experience it from another perspective and this was definitely an interesting one.
I struggled to get into this and at times it was really slow but I ended up absolutely loving it. While I found some of the authors comments questionable (specifically the stuff about eating disorders), I found for the most part the book to be a fascinating take on different aspects of the Brontes life - not just the three sisters but branwell and Patrick also.
A short book though dense at times so not always the easiest to read but definitely worth it. Especially when you get to "Spirit Writing". Just wow.
All the warnings I've marked as minor because they don't tend to go into extensive detail but they are mentioned as aspects of the Brontes' lives and/or novels
I struggled to get into this and at times it was really slow but I ended up absolutely loving it. While I found some of the authors comments questionable (specifically the stuff about eating disorders), I found for the most part the book to be a fascinating take on different aspects of the Brontes life - not just the three sisters but branwell and Patrick also.
A short book though dense at times so not always the easiest to read but definitely worth it. Especially when you get to "Spirit Writing". Just wow.
All the warnings I've marked as minor because they don't tend to go into extensive detail but they are mentioned as aspects of the Brontes' lives and/or novels
Content Warnings
Minor: Animal cruelty, Physical abuse, Eating disorder, Medical content, Mental illness, Alcoholism, Child death, Classism, Self harm, Addiction, Colonisation, Death, Drug use, Slavery, Suicide, and Torture
gabrielegregory's review against another edition
4.0
I found this a very entertaining read and thought the different chapters were imaginative. However there was a number of factual errors in the book which was disappointing.
themeadowlibrary's review
4.0
Fun, light, interesting read. Jane Eyre is, without a doubt, my favorite book, and I enjoyed the respect this author had for Jane Eyre and the Brontë family while still adding to their mystique. This book was filled with lots of little known facts and interesting theories.
girlwithherheadinabook's review
4.0
For my full review: https://girlwithherheadinabook.co.uk/2018/06/review-the-brontesaurus-john-sutherland.html
Writer and academic John Sutherland is well-known in literary geek circles for his puzzles on conundrums within classic literature such as Can Jane Eyre Be Happy? and Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? Here he returns to the stage for a Brontë-focused book, running down an A to Z from Anne's last journey and Attic matters right through to Wuthering and Windows. I admit I was surprised that Zamorna didn't make it for the final entry. Sutherland has an indisputable level of enthusiasm for the subject, kicking off with a passionate preface describing how Wuthering Heights sparked his own Brontëphilia. What makes The Brontësaurus so much fun is that not only does Sutherland know his stuff, but he's not afraid to have fun as he goes through his paces.
Divided into mini-chapters, the book is a collection of Sutherland's Brontëish musings and while sorted alphabetically, in reality we are travelling wherever his interest takes us. A few of his pet theories make a reappearance from previous books (E.g. Is Heathcliff a Murderer? - Sutherland's answer is yes: it was clearly Heathcliff what done in Hindley) and while he does not repeat his entire thesis on why Jane will not be happy with Rochester (it's complicated, but basically Rochester was trying to court Miss Blanche Ingram and then Mrs Fairfax probably intervened), Sutherland does go over his belief that Mr R killed his first wife.
My own favourite Sutherland puzzle however did not get a mention at all - in Can Jane Eyre Be Happy? Sutherland puts forward the idea that Cathy came back to haunt Heathcliff when she did because he had mentioned to Nelly a plan to visit his lawyer to change his will. Heathcliff's final act of planned revenge would be to ensure that neither young Catherine or Hareton inherit. Older Cathy had, Sutherland points out, three roles in Wuthering Heights; she had been Heathcliff's lover, Edgar's wife and Catherine's mother and Sutherland argues that it is in this final role that she returns to end Heathcliff's life before he can ruin her daughter's future. The image of the two lovers reunited with Cathy's retribution complete and Heathcliff defeated is glorious - it made me see the book in an entirely new light.
The Brontësaurus is about much more than Sutherland's thoughts on contentious moments in classic literature. He ponders on the well-known Brontë pets Flossy and Keeper, the damning letters Charlotte sent to Monsieur Heger, considers Arthur Bell Nicholls is a not too forgiving light. He analyses the notorious Pillar which blocked out Branwell, ponders Branwell's involvement with Mrs Robinson and even posits quite convincingly that Branwell committed suicide rather than dying of tuberculosis. It is an odd slightly lurid moment though when Sutherland comments that 'Charlotte's sisters had gone to their graves young virgins. She, now a middle-aged woman of 37, was the only daughter to experience sexual intercourse. It killed her'. This of course refers to Charlotte's death as a result of hyperemesis gravidarum but all the same, it indicates a rather Victorian attitude towards chastity.
I noticed though that Sutherland takes quite a Jane Eyre-centric approach, even finishing the book with John Crace's Jane Eyre: abbreviated as an appendix. With chapters on attics, bigamy, Creoles, Grace and more, Charlotte's first-published novel gets by far the most screen-time out of all the sisters' works. I was particularly caught though by Sutherland's observation on all of the feminist readings which perceive Bertha Mason as representing Jane's repressed self, or 'the inner rebellion of Victorian womanhood'. He points out rather astutely that while people remember the opening line about there being no possibility of a walk and that reader, Jane married him, few recall the closing words 'Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus!' A truly revisionist view on Jane Eyre might note that it was a novel written by a woman of strong religious feeling intending with 'an overt Christian motive'. I remember being surprised on my own first reading of Jane Eyre that the finale seemed more about acknowledging the holy sacrifice of St John Rivers rather than Jane and Rochester's happiness together - Sutherland really does have a point.
Brontësaurus is a light-hearted and fun look at one of literature's most famous families, but there are moments when it does feel a little hurried. It does seem that a few steps around proof-reading were missed, with authors' names mis-spelled in a few places and a reference made to Emily Brontë telling her students in Brussels that she cared more for the school dog than any of them when she actually did that at Law Hill. And also, Charlotte and Anne went to Scarborough with Ellen Nussey, not a servant. While these errors are minor, they could have been caught fairly easily. When I compared Brontësaurus to John Mullan's What Matters in Jane Austen? I can see that the latter book was written with a great deal more thought and consideration. One has the vague feeling with Brontësaurus that Sutherland is recycling his greatest hits. It's not that it is not enjoyable, but it is a prettier and more accessible update of material from the 1990s.
All that being said, Sutherland's book is a welcome ray of light and good humour given how bleak so much of the reading around the Brontës can be. He takes a tongue-in-cheek tone of deference towards 'that most level-headed of biographers' Juliet Barker and acknowledges how difficult it is to really know anything for certain when it comes to the Brontës. While other writers huff and puff in attempting to challenge received wisdom about the family, Sutherland seemingly saunters in and manages with a few words what it takes others paragraphs to achieve. He makes writing interesting literary criticism seem effortless - high praise indeed. Brontëphiles are guaranteed to find something to appreciate and indeed, more surprisingly, to uncover something that they had never considered before.
Writer and academic John Sutherland is well-known in literary geek circles for his puzzles on conundrums within classic literature such as Can Jane Eyre Be Happy? and Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? Here he returns to the stage for a Brontë-focused book, running down an A to Z from Anne's last journey and Attic matters right through to Wuthering and Windows. I admit I was surprised that Zamorna didn't make it for the final entry. Sutherland has an indisputable level of enthusiasm for the subject, kicking off with a passionate preface describing how Wuthering Heights sparked his own Brontëphilia. What makes The Brontësaurus so much fun is that not only does Sutherland know his stuff, but he's not afraid to have fun as he goes through his paces.
Divided into mini-chapters, the book is a collection of Sutherland's Brontëish musings and while sorted alphabetically, in reality we are travelling wherever his interest takes us. A few of his pet theories make a reappearance from previous books (E.g. Is Heathcliff a Murderer? - Sutherland's answer is yes: it was clearly Heathcliff what done in Hindley) and while he does not repeat his entire thesis on why Jane will not be happy with Rochester (it's complicated, but basically Rochester was trying to court Miss Blanche Ingram and then Mrs Fairfax probably intervened), Sutherland does go over his belief that Mr R killed his first wife.
My own favourite Sutherland puzzle however did not get a mention at all - in Can Jane Eyre Be Happy? Sutherland puts forward the idea that Cathy came back to haunt Heathcliff when she did because he had mentioned to Nelly a plan to visit his lawyer to change his will. Heathcliff's final act of planned revenge would be to ensure that neither young Catherine or Hareton inherit. Older Cathy had, Sutherland points out, three roles in Wuthering Heights; she had been Heathcliff's lover, Edgar's wife and Catherine's mother and Sutherland argues that it is in this final role that she returns to end Heathcliff's life before he can ruin her daughter's future. The image of the two lovers reunited with Cathy's retribution complete and Heathcliff defeated is glorious - it made me see the book in an entirely new light.
The Brontësaurus is about much more than Sutherland's thoughts on contentious moments in classic literature. He ponders on the well-known Brontë pets Flossy and Keeper, the damning letters Charlotte sent to Monsieur Heger, considers Arthur Bell Nicholls is a not too forgiving light. He analyses the notorious Pillar which blocked out Branwell, ponders Branwell's involvement with Mrs Robinson and even posits quite convincingly that Branwell committed suicide rather than dying of tuberculosis. It is an odd slightly lurid moment though when Sutherland comments that 'Charlotte's sisters had gone to their graves young virgins. She, now a middle-aged woman of 37, was the only daughter to experience sexual intercourse. It killed her'. This of course refers to Charlotte's death as a result of hyperemesis gravidarum but all the same, it indicates a rather Victorian attitude towards chastity.
I noticed though that Sutherland takes quite a Jane Eyre-centric approach, even finishing the book with John Crace's Jane Eyre: abbreviated as an appendix. With chapters on attics, bigamy, Creoles, Grace and more, Charlotte's first-published novel gets by far the most screen-time out of all the sisters' works. I was particularly caught though by Sutherland's observation on all of the feminist readings which perceive Bertha Mason as representing Jane's repressed self, or 'the inner rebellion of Victorian womanhood'. He points out rather astutely that while people remember the opening line about there being no possibility of a walk and that reader, Jane married him, few recall the closing words 'Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus!' A truly revisionist view on Jane Eyre might note that it was a novel written by a woman of strong religious feeling intending with 'an overt Christian motive'. I remember being surprised on my own first reading of Jane Eyre that the finale seemed more about acknowledging the holy sacrifice of St John Rivers rather than Jane and Rochester's happiness together - Sutherland really does have a point.
Brontësaurus is a light-hearted and fun look at one of literature's most famous families, but there are moments when it does feel a little hurried. It does seem that a few steps around proof-reading were missed, with authors' names mis-spelled in a few places and a reference made to Emily Brontë telling her students in Brussels that she cared more for the school dog than any of them when she actually did that at Law Hill. And also, Charlotte and Anne went to Scarborough with Ellen Nussey, not a servant. While these errors are minor, they could have been caught fairly easily. When I compared Brontësaurus to John Mullan's What Matters in Jane Austen? I can see that the latter book was written with a great deal more thought and consideration. One has the vague feeling with Brontësaurus that Sutherland is recycling his greatest hits. It's not that it is not enjoyable, but it is a prettier and more accessible update of material from the 1990s.
All that being said, Sutherland's book is a welcome ray of light and good humour given how bleak so much of the reading around the Brontës can be. He takes a tongue-in-cheek tone of deference towards 'that most level-headed of biographers' Juliet Barker and acknowledges how difficult it is to really know anything for certain when it comes to the Brontës. While other writers huff and puff in attempting to challenge received wisdom about the family, Sutherland seemingly saunters in and manages with a few words what it takes others paragraphs to achieve. He makes writing interesting literary criticism seem effortless - high praise indeed. Brontëphiles are guaranteed to find something to appreciate and indeed, more surprisingly, to uncover something that they had never considered before.
More...