Scan barcode
A review by girlwithherheadinabook
The Brontësaurus: An A-Z of Charlotte, Emily and Anne Brontë (and Branwell) by John Sutherland
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.