Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.67 AVERAGE
3.67 AVERAGE
Moral of the story: Don't bring home feral children you find in the street.
I tried to like this book, really, I did. The main characters are just SO unlikable and I wasn't interested at all in what happened to them or anyone else in this book.
I tried to like this book, really, I did. The main characters are just SO unlikable and I wasn't interested at all in what happened to them or anyone else in this book.
Fairly early on in this book, there's a scene where Nelly Dean is chastising young Heathcliff for his actions towards Catherine, and she utters this phrase: "Proud people breed sad sorrows for themselves."
That's it. That's the whole book summed up in one line.
I'll be perfectly honest; I didn't enjoy this book. Believe me, no one is more upset about that than I am. I'll get to why I didn't enjoy it in a minute, but first let me say that I respect this book's place in literature. And I think it should be read and studied by anyone even vaguely interested in gothic literature, women writers, and Emily Bronte's time period. I do wish I'd be assigned this "classic" in high school where some smart English teacher could've placed this book in history for me, and harped on about the symbolism of the characters and place settings. I actually would've enjoyed that more than just reading this on my own as a 30 year old.
I specifically chose to read this book concurrent with my first read through of Jane Eyre, by Emily's older sister, Charlotte Bronte. Perhaps this was a mistake as the two books are incredibly different in tone and style. Jane Eyre is straight-forward in its eloquence, and terribly romantic in its feeling. I was almost immediately won over by Jane's independence and the sassy dialogues between her and Mr. Rochester. Wuthering Heights by contrast felt like a cold grimdark fantasy. It was difficult for me to believe these books were written at roughly the same time - by sisters who lived together no less!
Looking at Wuthering Heights as a whole, I find Emily Bronte's plot structure and narration clever, but overwrought. Her descriptions of the moors and the two houses at the center of the story are designed not for emotional poetry but for exacting symbolism. I felt like I was reading an incredibly intelligent PhD's thesis on how to use symbolism to create a novel. It felt like a treatise on all the ways human nature can be corrupted and twisted instead of a novel one reads for pleasure.
All of that is why I didn't enjoy this book. I read to be transported. I read to escape. I do not read to remember how terrible people are; I can look at any source of news or social media site in the world to see that. And I'm not one of those "every story must have a happy ending types" either. I love tragedies! But this book was relentless in its grimness. I didn't like any of the characters in this book (I mean, I think the point is NOT to like them). Maybe Nelly Dean, but even then her character is just another cog in the great machine of this plot, so I never got invested in her actions or well-being. I didn't like the plot even if I objectively looked at it and could say, "Yeah, all right, I see what you're getting at here," with all of the parallels and the traversing back and forth. I thought I would at least like the language, but nope. Even that I found fairly dry and unemotional. It didn't captivate me at all.
I only finished this book through sheer determination to get through so I could finally say I'd read it. (Well, and I checked out an audiobook version from the library that I listened to at 1.5x speed.) This may be the most disappointing thing I've read all year, as I thoroughly expected to love it and give it five stars. Instead, I'm rating it two for my level of enjoyment... with one more because I do think I should give it some credit for what it helped pave the way for in literature. So 3 stars. I don't know if I'll ever read it again. But I look forward to talking to some of my English major friends about it to see if maybe they can help sway my opinion...?
That's it. That's the whole book summed up in one line.
I'll be perfectly honest; I didn't enjoy this book. Believe me, no one is more upset about that than I am. I'll get to why I didn't enjoy it in a minute, but first let me say that I respect this book's place in literature. And I think it should be read and studied by anyone even vaguely interested in gothic literature, women writers, and Emily Bronte's time period. I do wish I'd be assigned this "classic" in high school where some smart English teacher could've placed this book in history for me, and harped on about the symbolism of the characters and place settings. I actually would've enjoyed that more than just reading this on my own as a 30 year old.
I specifically chose to read this book concurrent with my first read through of Jane Eyre, by Emily's older sister, Charlotte Bronte. Perhaps this was a mistake as the two books are incredibly different in tone and style. Jane Eyre is straight-forward in its eloquence, and terribly romantic in its feeling. I was almost immediately won over by Jane's independence and the sassy dialogues between her and Mr. Rochester. Wuthering Heights by contrast felt like a cold grimdark fantasy. It was difficult for me to believe these books were written at roughly the same time - by sisters who lived together no less!
Looking at Wuthering Heights as a whole, I find Emily Bronte's plot structure and narration clever, but overwrought. Her descriptions of the moors and the two houses at the center of the story are designed not for emotional poetry but for exacting symbolism. I felt like I was reading an incredibly intelligent PhD's thesis on how to use symbolism to create a novel. It felt like a treatise on all the ways human nature can be corrupted and twisted instead of a novel one reads for pleasure.
All of that is why I didn't enjoy this book. I read to be transported. I read to escape. I do not read to remember how terrible people are; I can look at any source of news or social media site in the world to see that. And I'm not one of those "every story must have a happy ending types" either. I love tragedies! But this book was relentless in its grimness. I didn't like any of the characters in this book (I mean, I think the point is NOT to like them). Maybe Nelly Dean, but even then her character is just another cog in the great machine of this plot, so I never got invested in her actions or well-being. I didn't like the plot even if I objectively looked at it and could say, "Yeah, all right, I see what you're getting at here," with all of the parallels and the traversing back and forth. I thought I would at least like the language, but nope. Even that I found fairly dry and unemotional. It didn't captivate me at all.
I only finished this book through sheer determination to get through so I could finally say I'd read it. (Well, and I checked out an audiobook version from the library that I listened to at 1.5x speed.) This may be the most disappointing thing I've read all year, as I thoroughly expected to love it and give it five stars. Instead, I'm rating it two for my level of enjoyment... with one more because I do think I should give it some credit for what it helped pave the way for in literature. So 3 stars. I don't know if I'll ever read it again. But I look forward to talking to some of my English major friends about it to see if maybe they can help sway my opinion...?
I utterly and completely fail to understand the appeal of this book. It's not, as it claims to be, a tale of a passionate love affair. It's the tale of a bunch of selfish and childish people being selfish and childish. The longer I read it the more I started to hate it.
As I've said before, I think that characters make a book. This made it really hard to get into Wuthering Heights. Nearly all of them are selfish and cruel and I was only plodding through it to prove to a friend I could read something other than Austen. Then the other night I finished it and could see why it had become a classic. With the villians dead (there are certainly more than just Heathcliff), Cathy and Hareton (who I think were the only true victims in the story) were able to scrape together the beginnings of a happily ever after, overcoming their family history of cruelty and ignorance. That all made it worth the length and density and frequent change of narrator.
I can understand why some people don't like this, but I loved it. It's so MOODY and a really great meditation on love imo.
Still my absolute favorite book, even with all books I've read since I first read this back in middle school.
No. Just no. I don’t remember the last time I had such a visceral reaction to a book. I absolutely hated this. I don’t know if this is just a case of me not understanding the book or something like that but all I know is how much I hated the characters, hated the plot, hated everything.
[i wanted this to be short and it isnt, and its also super rambly and probably makes no sense, sorry]
okay, honestly, if i had to rate this by 'enjoyment during the reading process' it would have...very meager 3 stars? about halfway through, i could 100% understand the people who hate this book. now that im finished, i also understand the people who love it, and why it's a classic. while reading, i found myself wondering on which side i would end up; i couldnt figure it out. then i had a sort of epiphany about the narrative structure, which lead to a lot of thoughts, and now i find myself more inclined to the positive side.
Here's the thing: The reason this is so challenging is because the characters just arent likeable. As a reader you unwittingly search for someone to root for, and it caused me a great deal of irritation that every time i thought id formed an attachment to a character, they did something that disappointed me, or repulsed me, or made me lost interest in their fate for some other reason.
The thing is, this is part of what's so genius about this book. (if this seems to make no sense - bear with me!) It's only possible because of the POV. At first i didnt get (at all) why Bronte chose housekeeper Nelly as her narrator - I was promised a story of /passion/, and wouldnt that be best told, for intensity and authenticity, by one of the main characters? But, no, because only through the eyes of a bystanding character who can watch all of these people and tell their stories and yet never really exactly understand them, is it possible to be so confused about your judgements as a reader.
You constantly wonder; do I feel sorry for these people? Do I hate them? Do I feel indifferent? Somehow .....all of this at once? By the end of the book I was reluctant to impose any sort of moral judgement on any character because I was. so confused. I never really experienced this like that and to be honest it exhausted the hell out of me, but it's also brillant.
Why is it so important? Because these ever-changing opinions and judgements are the best way to ask questions, or rather, to plant the ideas for questions in a reader's mind. And Jesus are there many questions. Like:
Can capacity for love make up for being a despicable person? To what degree are we influenced by our upbringing? Is selflessness for a person still selfless if it hurts...the rest of the world? What makes a good person a good person? (and what makes a monster a monster?) Is wanting to break out of boundaries regardless of the consequences brave or is it selfish? What is the 'right' or better kind of love: passion without reason or empathy without passion? What *is* love, anyway?
You feel? :D
Most of these are related to the two aspects I find most interesting about this story; first, the vicious cycle of hate or revenge which also ties in to the nature vs nurture question: I think it's super important for this reason that the plot revolves around more than one generation because that makes you see the whole 'cycle' aspect of it, and it makes for some significant parallels. There's the whole thing with Heathcliff going from abused to abuser (and it's interesting (in a kind of really morbid way though) to think of how he actually seems to come to like Hareton by the end, probably because he sees himself in him, this kind of contradictory mix of anger/pride and self loathing that comes from being abused) Then there are the characters that grow up with love and care - the Lintons, young Cathy, but they face the problem of not having the resources to deal with the 'bad side' of human nature when faced with it. I just especially found the whole aspect of how easily children can be conditioned a certain way (especially negatively), super accurately portrayed, and how tragic it is that they dont even have the awareness that they have been wronged because they dont know any other way. The ending does show a bit of hope via Hareton and young Cathy, that genuine love and care may win over negative influences, after all.
The second aspect is what - in my eyes - has drawn so many people to the love story (and, i guess, made a lot of them romanticize it which.....is dangerous. But, I do get why it happens.) There is a contrast which runs through the entire book between the 'soft' personalities who are good hearted and....you know, sorta unproblematic but also sorta boring because of their mellowness (characterized by the Lintons), and on the other side the wildness, the unrestrictedness, the totality, the passion (characterized mainly by Heathcliff). And these two personalities also show two types of love. Love within, or beyond (societal/moral) boundaries? Catherine feels torn between the two in the choice between Heathcliff and Edgar Linton. The first is probably more healthy, the second (maybe) more fulfilling - but all sorts of intensity of passion also have a great potential for destructiveness (which.....is kind of what the entire second half is about). And Catherine, as much as she says she and Heathcliff are the same (which shows exactly that aspect of boundlessness, totality), she is not quite as willing to give up everything for their love as he is. Which....causes a lot of the trouble that happens afterwards. Actually all of it. So really, this problem of the way passion connects love and fulfillment and hate and destruction so closely together that they are perhaps even indistinguishable, is central to the book.
Bronte somehow manages to raise all these and many more questions in this novel, and problematizes all of the sides so that you get no easy answers.
(On a sidenote, yooo I love the fact that Heathcliff doesn't get what you call a 'redemption arc'. Because how boring would that have been. I also love how he defies being romanticized or easily put in the Tragic Hero category (even though people definitely did/do put him there, and his character does leave a lot of room for interpretation, but I feel like this does greatly simplify and misunderstand the way hes written), He does get humanized, sort of, at the end, but in a rather disturbing gothic kinda way. You go, Emily, that was super well done. In general, that mix of like realistic storytelling and these supernatural elements worked really well. It was definitely atmospheric. )
(also, second sidenote, the writing is great. I loved especially the descriptions of the scenery and how the tied in with the plot flawlessly. every word is on spot.)
so!! this was a very unusual book for me. and its not what i would call a favorite, because i dont....feel a close attachment to it, you know, the kind of /intensity/ you feel about favorite books. mostly because of the lack of character likeability, BUT its really kind of ironic because this is precisely what makes the story so outstanding and interesting. i do think it has a lot of potential for discussion and analysis and further thought, and it raises compelling questions, an im not sorry i read it.
i do recommend, but....with caution, maybe? its kind of an experiment. you wont know if youll like it and think its brillant, or it will frustrate the hell out of you, unless you try!
okay, honestly, if i had to rate this by 'enjoyment during the reading process' it would have...very meager 3 stars? about halfway through, i could 100% understand the people who hate this book. now that im finished, i also understand the people who love it, and why it's a classic. while reading, i found myself wondering on which side i would end up; i couldnt figure it out. then i had a sort of epiphany about the narrative structure, which lead to a lot of thoughts, and now i find myself more inclined to the positive side.
Here's the thing: The reason this is so challenging is because the characters just arent likeable. As a reader you unwittingly search for someone to root for, and it caused me a great deal of irritation that every time i thought id formed an attachment to a character, they did something that disappointed me, or repulsed me, or made me lost interest in their fate for some other reason.
The thing is, this is part of what's so genius about this book. (if this seems to make no sense - bear with me!) It's only possible because of the POV. At first i didnt get (at all) why Bronte chose housekeeper Nelly as her narrator - I was promised a story of /passion/, and wouldnt that be best told, for intensity and authenticity, by one of the main characters? But, no, because only through the eyes of a bystanding character who can watch all of these people and tell their stories and yet never really exactly understand them, is it possible to be so confused about your judgements as a reader.
You constantly wonder; do I feel sorry for these people? Do I hate them? Do I feel indifferent? Somehow .....all of this at once? By the end of the book I was reluctant to impose any sort of moral judgement on any character because I was. so confused. I never really experienced this like that and to be honest it exhausted the hell out of me, but it's also brillant.
Why is it so important? Because these ever-changing opinions and judgements are the best way to ask questions, or rather, to plant the ideas for questions in a reader's mind. And Jesus are there many questions. Like:
Can capacity for love make up for being a despicable person? To what degree are we influenced by our upbringing? Is selflessness for a person still selfless if it hurts...the rest of the world? What makes a good person a good person? (and what makes a monster a monster?) Is wanting to break out of boundaries regardless of the consequences brave or is it selfish? What is the 'right' or better kind of love: passion without reason or empathy without passion? What *is* love, anyway?
You feel? :D
Most of these are related to the two aspects I find most interesting about this story; first, the vicious cycle of hate or revenge which also ties in to the nature vs nurture question: I think it's super important for this reason that the plot revolves around more than one generation because that makes you see the whole 'cycle' aspect of it, and it makes for some significant parallels. There's the whole thing with Heathcliff going from abused to abuser (and it's interesting (in a kind of really morbid way though) to think of how he actually seems to come to like Hareton by the end, probably because he sees himself in him, this kind of contradictory mix of anger/pride and self loathing that comes from being abused) Then there are the characters that grow up with love and care - the Lintons, young Cathy, but they face the problem of not having the resources to deal with the 'bad side' of human nature when faced with it. I just especially found the whole aspect of how easily children can be conditioned a certain way (especially negatively), super accurately portrayed, and how tragic it is that they dont even have the awareness that they have been wronged because they dont know any other way. The ending does show a bit of hope via Hareton and young Cathy, that genuine love and care may win over negative influences, after all.
The second aspect is what - in my eyes - has drawn so many people to the love story (and, i guess, made a lot of them romanticize it which.....is dangerous. But, I do get why it happens.) There is a contrast which runs through the entire book between the 'soft' personalities who are good hearted and....you know, sorta unproblematic but also sorta boring because of their mellowness (characterized by the Lintons), and on the other side the wildness, the unrestrictedness, the totality, the passion (characterized mainly by Heathcliff). And these two personalities also show two types of love. Love within, or beyond (societal/moral) boundaries? Catherine feels torn between the two in the choice between Heathcliff and Edgar Linton. The first is probably more healthy, the second (maybe) more fulfilling - but all sorts of intensity of passion also have a great potential for destructiveness (which.....is kind of what the entire second half is about). And Catherine, as much as she says she and Heathcliff are the same (which shows exactly that aspect of boundlessness, totality), she is not quite as willing to give up everything for their love as he is. Which....causes a lot of the trouble that happens afterwards. Actually all of it. So really, this problem of the way passion connects love and fulfillment and hate and destruction so closely together that they are perhaps even indistinguishable, is central to the book.
Bronte somehow manages to raise all these and many more questions in this novel, and problematizes all of the sides so that you get no easy answers.
(On a sidenote, yooo I love the fact that Heathcliff doesn't get what you call a 'redemption arc'. Because how boring would that have been. I also love how he defies being romanticized or easily put in the Tragic Hero category (even though people definitely did/do put him there, and his character does leave a lot of room for interpretation, but I feel like this does greatly simplify and misunderstand the way hes written), He does get humanized, sort of, at the end, but in a rather disturbing gothic kinda way. You go, Emily, that was super well done. In general, that mix of like realistic storytelling and these supernatural elements worked really well. It was definitely atmospheric. )
(also, second sidenote, the writing is great. I loved especially the descriptions of the scenery and how the tied in with the plot flawlessly. every word is on spot.)
so!! this was a very unusual book for me. and its not what i would call a favorite, because i dont....feel a close attachment to it, you know, the kind of /intensity/ you feel about favorite books. mostly because of the lack of character likeability, BUT its really kind of ironic because this is precisely what makes the story so outstanding and interesting. i do think it has a lot of potential for discussion and analysis and further thought, and it raises compelling questions, an im not sorry i read it.
i do recommend, but....with caution, maybe? its kind of an experiment. you wont know if youll like it and think its brillant, or it will frustrate the hell out of you, unless you try!
I find this a hard book to rate. It was incredibly depressing for the most part, as well as disturbing (it gave me nightmares), but I can’t say that I didn’t enjoy reading it. Most of the characters are despicable and hypocritical, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t understand them. Emily Brontë explores what abuse can do to people (Heathcliff starts out as a victim but ultimately becomes an abuser, Linton is reduced to fear and pettiness and Cathy, ultimately, overcomes her abuse and doesn’t allow it to reduce her to a victim or to change her into a perpetrator) without excusing their behaviour. I found ‘Wuthering Heights’ to be perfect for the dreary autumn weather, but I was glad that, once I had finished it, I could go on and read something a little lighter and a bit more cheerful.