Scan barcode
story_of_steph's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
I loved this and found it terribly boring at the same time. Jane is a strong female character and I adored her. I loved the storyline and how it all wove together. I can also see why it was considered a bit scandalous for its time. But it was overly descriptive and I found myself skimming a lot of the book due to this. It also took me almost 3months to read so although I enjoyed the story I can’t say it will be a favourite classic of mine.
mmai27231's review against another edition
I am not talking to you now through the medium of custom, conventionalities, nor even of mortal flesh: it is my spirit that addresses your spirit; just as if both had passed through the grave, and we stood at God's feet, equal, as we are.
anushkanath's review against another edition
3.0
I honestly hated this book when I first started it. My biggest critique is that the author focuses on random topics for far too long. For example, there was almost 2 pages of her describing dogs jumping on Mr. Lockwood's lap. Looking back, I don't regret reading it. The book's pace quickens and it's hard to not find yourself wanting more after Brontë concludes her work.
lmcdonald's review against another edition
4.0
I liked Wuthering Heights twice as much as I probably should have and liked Jane Eyre half as much as it probably deserved
neverlandcallie's review against another edition
5.0
I am only halfway through Wuthering Heights, but I already have so much to say that I have to come and write down all my thoughts before I forget them.
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
There are some things I like about this book, and there are some things that I really hate about this book. The following are simply a few of my thoughts:
I'll admit, when I started reading, I didn't have a clue what was going on, or who the narrator was. Last night, I ended up re-reading the first 50 pages of the book to try and understand what was going on. After doing so, I was able to pick out who the narrator(s) was/were, and understood exactly the storyline and what would happen.
On the topic of narrators, I like the fact that the book begins with an outsider, Mr. Lockwood, coming to Wuthering Heights to live. After encountering so many strange events during his stay and meeting with Heathcliff, his landlord, it stood for a very intriguing beginning. Then, when Mrs. Dean, or "Nelly," is introduced and he begs her to tell the story of Mr. Heathcliff and his strange behavior, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing a story take place through not one, but two different point of views. Though confusing at first, I was able to later get it and understand.
I do not like the fact that both Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff are such evil characters. Catherine is the one who began her own demise (by accepting Edgar Linton's marriage proposal) when she really loved Heathcliff. Because of her stupidity and heart full of greed for Edgar's money, she betrayed Heathcliff, whom she loved. Heathcliff, overhearing her heartbreak over her decision, takes off and vows to make something of himself to prove to Catherine that he is worthy of his love and heart. BUT IT'S TOO FRICKING LATE! It's very bittersweet that he wants to prove his love, but divorce was a sin during this time period. Catherine would never leave Edgar, even if she did love Heathcliff more. Gah, and the fact that Heathcliff had grown so greedy for money, upon Catherine's mentioning that Isabella had money and loved him, he "wooed" her so to speak, and married her for nothing but money and a chance to enact revenge on Edgar Linton. Then Catherine claims that his battle with Edgar is what murdered her, when in fact she pretty much murdered herself because of her sheer stupidity.
This is a dark story, and I honestly don't have a clue if it could be called a love story, because it's not. It's almost a warning AGAINST love. Emily Bronte is almost saying, "This is what love shouldn't be. Do not follow this example." For that, it's a great story of warning, and probably why I don't like this story all too much.
Okay /endrant. I've got to go finish the last half--(Speaking of the last half, does there even need to be more? Catherine's dead. Heathcliff is mourning and pretty much wants to kill himself. (Do you see the Shakespeare ties with this, too? IT'S EVERYWHERE! Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth . . . the madness, the "I'm so in love I'm going to kill myself," the tragedy, the depressing themes. Emily Bronte loved Shakespeare, I'm sure of it.) What's the point of more story? There isn't one anymore. At least, I think.)
**update**
I finished reading, and honestly, all I really have to say about the story is this: 1) Emily Bronte is twisted in imagining a story such as this and 2) Heathcliff is a sick, twisted, evil man and should rot in Hell with Catherine Earnshaw for eternity.
The reason I give Wuthering Heights four stars, is the fact that the writing was great (though very wordy at times) and the underlying themes strong and powerful. If read mulitiple times, you could probably find something new and learn something new about it. That's why her writing is timeless, and very unforgettable. I'm sure that's why it's remembered as a classic, no matter how sick and twisted it may be.
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
I have finished.
It was beautiful.
I will update my review some other time, right now, I am exhausted.
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
There are some things I like about this book, and there are some things that I really hate about this book. The following are simply a few of my thoughts:
I'll admit, when I started reading, I didn't have a clue what was going on, or who the narrator was. Last night, I ended up re-reading the first 50 pages of the book to try and understand what was going on. After doing so, I was able to pick out who the narrator(s) was/were, and understood exactly the storyline and what would happen.
On the topic of narrators, I like the fact that the book begins with an outsider, Mr. Lockwood, coming to Wuthering Heights to live. After encountering so many strange events during his stay and meeting with Heathcliff, his landlord, it stood for a very intriguing beginning. Then, when Mrs. Dean, or "Nelly," is introduced and he begs her to tell the story of Mr. Heathcliff and his strange behavior, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing a story take place through not one, but two different point of views. Though confusing at first, I was able to later get it and understand.
I do not like the fact that both Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff are such evil characters. Catherine is the one who began her own demise (by accepting Edgar Linton's marriage proposal) when she really loved Heathcliff. Because of her stupidity and heart full of greed for Edgar's money, she betrayed Heathcliff, whom she loved. Heathcliff, overhearing her heartbreak over her decision, takes off and vows to make something of himself to prove to Catherine that he is worthy of his love and heart. BUT IT'S TOO FRICKING LATE! It's very bittersweet that he wants to prove his love, but divorce was a sin during this time period. Catherine would never leave Edgar, even if she did love Heathcliff more. Gah, and the fact that Heathcliff had grown so greedy for money, upon Catherine's mentioning that Isabella had money and loved him, he "wooed" her so to speak, and married her for nothing but money and a chance to enact revenge on Edgar Linton. Then Catherine claims that his battle with Edgar is what murdered her, when in fact she pretty much murdered herself because of her sheer stupidity.
This is a dark story, and I honestly don't have a clue if it could be called a love story, because it's not. It's almost a warning AGAINST love. Emily Bronte is almost saying, "This is what love shouldn't be. Do not follow this example." For that, it's a great story of warning, and probably why I don't like this story all too much.
Okay /endrant. I've got to go finish the last half--(Speaking of the last half, does there even need to be more? Catherine's dead. Heathcliff is mourning and pretty much wants to kill himself. (Do you see the Shakespeare ties with this, too? IT'S EVERYWHERE! Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth . . . the madness, the "I'm so in love I'm going to kill myself," the tragedy, the depressing themes. Emily Bronte loved Shakespeare, I'm sure of it.) What's the point of more story? There isn't one anymore. At least, I think.)
**update**
I finished reading, and honestly, all I really have to say about the story is this: 1) Emily Bronte is twisted in imagining a story such as this and 2) Heathcliff is a sick, twisted, evil man and should rot in Hell with Catherine Earnshaw for eternity.
The reason I give Wuthering Heights four stars, is the fact that the writing was great (though very wordy at times) and the underlying themes strong and powerful. If read mulitiple times, you could probably find something new and learn something new about it. That's why her writing is timeless, and very unforgettable. I'm sure that's why it's remembered as a classic, no matter how sick and twisted it may be.
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
I have finished.
It was beautiful.
I will update my review some other time, right now, I am exhausted.
beggin4books's review
3.0
(3.5/5 stars) Wuthering Heights only not Jane Eyre
This is probably one of my least favorite reads of all time.
I hated every character, and I thought the "upbeat" ending was a little uncharacteristic considering how the rest of the novel before it.
That's all.
The writing though was alright. The story was like a soap opera that never should have aired in the first place.
This is probably one of my least favorite reads of all time.
I hated every character, and I thought the "upbeat" ending was a little uncharacteristic considering how the rest of the novel before it.
That's all.
The writing though was alright. The story was like a soap opera that never should have aired in the first place.
emmeline's review
challenging
dark
medium-paced
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Jane Eyre: 3/5, I was not a fan of the ending
Wuthering Heights: Read from 5/11/2020-5/18/2020, 3.5/5/. Faster pace than Jane Eyre which I liked, it felt rushed in parts but never really dragged.
Wuthering Heights: Read from 5/11/2020-5/18/2020, 3.5/5/. Faster pace than Jane Eyre which I liked, it felt rushed in parts but never really dragged.
jaironside's review
5.0
This is one of those weird 5 star reviews where I can honestly say that I don't love the book.
This is not the first time I've read this book. Or the second. Or the fifth. It is the first time I've properly read it in fifteen years so it gave me new perspectives on the characters, which was refreshing. Personal back story - this was one of my favourite books when I was 14 (quite some time ago) up until I read it for A-level (also quite some time ago) which rather cooled me towards a reread. I hasten to add that I didn't love the book because I thought it was a grand romance, even as a teenager.
This is not a love story.
It irritated me no end that in the wake of the Twilight epidemic, it was repackaged and re-covered as a romance for the YA market.
Another reviewer rather aptly described it as a horror story which is pretty on the money. And not just in terms of the gothic setting.
Wuthering Heights is an in depth deconstruction of the destructive ability of selfish love. It's characters persue their own twisted approximations of happiness even at the expense of those they reputedly love. While some might argue that, yes, they are all pretty awful people, the fact that they can love means they are redeemable, I'm afraid that argument doesn't cut much ice with me. If you consider all the pairings in the book - Hindley and his wife, Cathy and Heathcliff, Cathy and Edgar, Isabella and Heathcliff, Catherine and Linton, Catherine and Hareton - only the latter is at all approaching what you might consider a healthy relationship. Since they start off quite abusive to each other, that's not saying much. And that gives us a direction to go in as regards theme, because at that juncture it appears to be a discussion on nature versus nurture. Emily Bronte isn't even subtle about it at one point. She has Heathcliff, having ruined Hindley and hounded him to his death, take charge of the child Hareton with the words:
'we'll see if one tree won't grow as crooked as another with the same wind to twist it."
Heathcliff's revenge is not merely visited on his enemies but on his enemies' children. He deliberately neglects, degrades and brain washes Hareton to create a facsimile of himself at the same age out of his foster brother's child.
Heathcliff under the same treatment became vicious, scheming and cruel. Hareton, however, seems to have a better nature that is coarsened by his treatment not ruined by it. So is what Emily Bronte driving at here the fact that both nature and nurture play a role in who someone will become? Is she saying that while Heathcliff was naturally cruel he was made worse by Hindley's treatment and Cathy's desertion? If so, that would be very depressing, negating as it does much of free will. Personally, I think what she is saying is that bad treatment brings out the worst of someone's nature BUT the ability to recognise your nature and try to be superior to your circumstances, in short to choose to make the best of what you are and have been given, is what matters most. Certainly over an equal argument of straight forward nature vs nurture. It's a point revisted many times in various guises. Similar could be said for Cathy and her daughter Catherine, or Isabella and her son Linton. (Linton Heathcliff btw is a character I despise and hold in contempt over all the others, bad beginning and awful parents or not.)
So that's one thread. Another is how your choices in adversity especially grief or rejection define what sort of person you are. Hindley becomes a wastrel and useless, violent drunk on his wife's death, more or less comitting slow suicide and neglecting his son. By contrast Edgar, a very weak character in many respects, is moderate and kind, rearing his daughter, Catherine, with love and principle. Heathcliff loses Cathy twice - once to marriage with Edgar, then again to death. That second loss only hardens his resolution to revenge himself upon anyone connected to his misfortune. Reversed, Cathy loses Heathcliff twice, also primarily through her own pragmatic avarice and egocentricity, but her recourse is spite rather than calculated cruelty. What exactly are we meant to infer from this? That love is a vicious master and we are its servant? Or that if we love moderately it's hardly any better because it's an insipid thing, scarcely worth the bother? Or is there in fact a balancing point somewhere between the two? Hareton and Catherine, for instance, would seem set to be happy in that regard after a very rough start. What makes them better than their forebears? Possibly the fact that each wants the best for the other rather than just for themselves. By Wuthering Heights doctrine love without unselfishness is scarcely better than hate and will destroy you.
What interested me in this reread, was how much Heathcliff and Cathy struck me as being inherently weak. Yes, their love story is glorious and terrible and savage not to mention twisted. (I am being somewhat sarcastic here but we're meant to believe that it's a step beyond normal human love, I think) But neither of them is capable of sincere change in themselves. Perhaps adherence to a point to the brink of death and madness is not strength. Perhaps the inability to adapt and change as survival demands is the true weakness.
Final point - (and I am keeping this short because a) people have written books on this and b) I know for a fact I already wrote essays on it myself)
It is interesting that we never watch any of the story unfold directly. First it's through Lockwood's eyes, who is uncalculatedly unreliable due to his affected and somewhat weak and silly mindset. Then Nelly who is chillingly wed to her own agenda and if she does relate things honestly, skews facts by simple dint of believing herself always in the right of any situation. And then Zillah - an unreliable narrator related by an unreliable narrator to an unreliable narrator. Why so many layers between the audience and the story? It doesn't seem likely it was in anyway to protect the reader since we're hardly spared the violence or horror. (In it's day, WH was slammed for being coarse and violent and unseemly!) Could it possibly be to prevent us sympathising with the characters too much, leaving us free to watch and take heed? Or perhaps it is to make us question the events? We know the narrators lie or at least are biased. Is this a way of saying 'distrust what what you see both here and elsewhere' in matters of the heart?
There are times when it feels that Emily Bronte is deliberately sneering at traditional notions of love - familial, romantic, childish. Little wonder too if you consider her home life - seeing her father go through a bereavement that seems to have fundamentally altered him. Or Charlotte engaged in fantasies about her professor, Monsieur Heger - a married man - and making a quiet fool of herself over it. Or Branwell not being quiet at all as he destroyed himself over his alleged (but probably fantasised) affair with a married woman. Well might Emily have thought this love business was a bad affliction with the taker running presently mad.
I still get a lot from this book. It's a great piece of writing even if it's a love-hate relationship for me these days. At present Wuthering Heights and I just aren't ready to quit each other yet.
This is not the first time I've read this book. Or the second. Or the fifth. It is the first time I've properly read it in fifteen years so it gave me new perspectives on the characters, which was refreshing. Personal back story - this was one of my favourite books when I was 14 (quite some time ago) up until I read it for A-level (also quite some time ago) which rather cooled me towards a reread. I hasten to add that I didn't love the book because I thought it was a grand romance, even as a teenager.
This is not a love story.
It irritated me no end that in the wake of the Twilight epidemic, it was repackaged and re-covered as a romance for the YA market.
Another reviewer rather aptly described it as a horror story which is pretty on the money. And not just in terms of the gothic setting.
Wuthering Heights is an in depth deconstruction of the destructive ability of selfish love. It's characters persue their own twisted approximations of happiness even at the expense of those they reputedly love. While some might argue that, yes, they are all pretty awful people, the fact that they can love means they are redeemable, I'm afraid that argument doesn't cut much ice with me. If you consider all the pairings in the book - Hindley and his wife, Cathy and Heathcliff, Cathy and Edgar, Isabella and Heathcliff, Catherine and Linton, Catherine and Hareton - only the latter is at all approaching what you might consider a healthy relationship. Since they start off quite abusive to each other, that's not saying much. And that gives us a direction to go in as regards theme, because at that juncture it appears to be a discussion on nature versus nurture. Emily Bronte isn't even subtle about it at one point. She has Heathcliff, having ruined Hindley and hounded him to his death, take charge of the child Hareton with the words:
'we'll see if one tree won't grow as crooked as another with the same wind to twist it."
Heathcliff's revenge is not merely visited on his enemies but on his enemies' children. He deliberately neglects, degrades and brain washes Hareton to create a facsimile of himself at the same age out of his foster brother's child.
Heathcliff under the same treatment became vicious, scheming and cruel. Hareton, however, seems to have a better nature that is coarsened by his treatment not ruined by it. So is what Emily Bronte driving at here the fact that both nature and nurture play a role in who someone will become? Is she saying that while Heathcliff was naturally cruel he was made worse by Hindley's treatment and Cathy's desertion? If so, that would be very depressing, negating as it does much of free will. Personally, I think what she is saying is that bad treatment brings out the worst of someone's nature BUT the ability to recognise your nature and try to be superior to your circumstances, in short to choose to make the best of what you are and have been given, is what matters most. Certainly over an equal argument of straight forward nature vs nurture. It's a point revisted many times in various guises. Similar could be said for Cathy and her daughter Catherine, or Isabella and her son Linton. (Linton Heathcliff btw is a character I despise and hold in contempt over all the others, bad beginning and awful parents or not.)
So that's one thread. Another is how your choices in adversity especially grief or rejection define what sort of person you are. Hindley becomes a wastrel and useless, violent drunk on his wife's death, more or less comitting slow suicide and neglecting his son. By contrast Edgar, a very weak character in many respects, is moderate and kind, rearing his daughter, Catherine, with love and principle. Heathcliff loses Cathy twice - once to marriage with Edgar, then again to death. That second loss only hardens his resolution to revenge himself upon anyone connected to his misfortune. Reversed, Cathy loses Heathcliff twice, also primarily through her own pragmatic avarice and egocentricity, but her recourse is spite rather than calculated cruelty. What exactly are we meant to infer from this? That love is a vicious master and we are its servant? Or that if we love moderately it's hardly any better because it's an insipid thing, scarcely worth the bother? Or is there in fact a balancing point somewhere between the two? Hareton and Catherine, for instance, would seem set to be happy in that regard after a very rough start. What makes them better than their forebears? Possibly the fact that each wants the best for the other rather than just for themselves. By Wuthering Heights doctrine love without unselfishness is scarcely better than hate and will destroy you.
What interested me in this reread, was how much Heathcliff and Cathy struck me as being inherently weak. Yes, their love story is glorious and terrible and savage not to mention twisted. (I am being somewhat sarcastic here but we're meant to believe that it's a step beyond normal human love, I think) But neither of them is capable of sincere change in themselves. Perhaps adherence to a point to the brink of death and madness is not strength. Perhaps the inability to adapt and change as survival demands is the true weakness.
Final point - (and I am keeping this short because a) people have written books on this and b) I know for a fact I already wrote essays on it myself)
It is interesting that we never watch any of the story unfold directly. First it's through Lockwood's eyes, who is uncalculatedly unreliable due to his affected and somewhat weak and silly mindset. Then Nelly who is chillingly wed to her own agenda and if she does relate things honestly, skews facts by simple dint of believing herself always in the right of any situation. And then Zillah - an unreliable narrator related by an unreliable narrator to an unreliable narrator. Why so many layers between the audience and the story? It doesn't seem likely it was in anyway to protect the reader since we're hardly spared the violence or horror. (In it's day, WH was slammed for being coarse and violent and unseemly!) Could it possibly be to prevent us sympathising with the characters too much, leaving us free to watch and take heed? Or perhaps it is to make us question the events? We know the narrators lie or at least are biased. Is this a way of saying 'distrust what what you see both here and elsewhere' in matters of the heart?
There are times when it feels that Emily Bronte is deliberately sneering at traditional notions of love - familial, romantic, childish. Little wonder too if you consider her home life - seeing her father go through a bereavement that seems to have fundamentally altered him. Or Charlotte engaged in fantasies about her professor, Monsieur Heger - a married man - and making a quiet fool of herself over it. Or Branwell not being quiet at all as he destroyed himself over his alleged (but probably fantasised) affair with a married woman. Well might Emily have thought this love business was a bad affliction with the taker running presently mad.
I still get a lot from this book. It's a great piece of writing even if it's a love-hate relationship for me these days. At present Wuthering Heights and I just aren't ready to quit each other yet.