Just looking for a bit of a discussion here to help me put my feelings into words. I enjoyed the book, give it 4/5, made notes and annotations (for the first half until my mechanical pencil ran out of lead then I fully gave up on that lol), got immersed, even journalled a fair bit about it, but even when I quit on that because it was starting to get in the way of actually reading, it still took me over 2 months to read 330 pages. I thought I was being lazy but on the other hand I think it just wasn't the type to grip me and I'm not sure why.
On paper it's great. Fantastic idea, fantastic execution, great characters, great prose and dialogue. But it didn't have me absolutely fascinated like Dostoevsky or Tolstoy do, and I'm too dumb to figure out what those two exactly have that Emily Bronte didn't in Wuthering Heights. I feel like it had all the same tempestuous psychology driving the characters... the first half was really interesting and I was very curious in the beginning, how did all this strange setup come to be, why is Heathcliff like this, why is Cathy like this, what happened in this house, I even really liked Lockwood as a character and thought he was really interesting. And Mrs Dean's telling of the early days of Catherine and Heathcliff's childhood, their meeting the Lintons, Heathcliff disappearing, it was all really rich. But I think after that it falls off a little in the second half, before picking up again near the end with little Cathy's adolescent love stories.
But really I can't quite put my finger on why this book didn't make me want to read more of it every day, as does, say, Childhood Boyhood Youth by Tolstoy that I really enjoyed earlier this year or Crime and Punishment or Proust. Maybe the narration doesn't have as much of the depth inspecting the human soul or human life, it's just a telling of a fascinating, violent set of events within a few lives, and maybe that isn't as interesting. It's all subjective ofc don't let me tell you your favourite book sucks, but honestly if it is your fav tell me why. And if not what did you think of this book, did you binge it or slow burn it, have trouble keeping up your reading quota with it? etc.
Edit: btw yes I am fully aware that I am under no obligation to like a book and that I can just 'move on' but what I'm getting at here is as I said in the first line, a discussion. To learn something. These clever 1 line replies of you didn't like the book move on, they're like beyond useless, why are you even on the literature subreddit at this point lol it's like you don't even want to talk about books
It’s a brilliantly written book that I absolutely hate
There's a lot you could dislike about WH, to be honest, it's a very specific vibe.
This isn't necessarily you, though maybe worth considering: I've found that the thing that people most like about Tolstoy/Dostoevsky is that they make it very easy to feel smart while reading them. That doesn't make them bad obviously but it's a lot easier to see the philosophy in the classical Russian novels versus a lot of other literary movements. There's a reason they're the "starter pack" great writers for a lot of people and not, say, Virginia Woolf (who's both much harder to read and much more obtuse in what she's getting at) or Nabokov (who's very easy to misread because he basically spells nothing out) or even Hemingway (who is deceptively "simple" on the surface).
Bronte is very fun to read if you like gothic literature and not particularly fun if you don't. Half the people that read the novel seem to miss the point and think it's a romance for some reason. Most of the social commentary is drowned out by the very loud melodrama at the forefront of the plot. It's easy to read her work and go "ok so what?" whereas Tolstoy/Dostoevsky make sure you finish their novels with a list of Things To Take Away From It.
It's a book about anger, regret, despair, revenge and incest. It's a pain to read.
I don't know what I was expecting when I started this book. It's one whose title I've always heard of, but I never actually bothered to read the synopsis before I started reading.
The only thing I had seen about it before reading it was the recent teaser trailers at the movie theater: one was a short glimpse of what looked like a sex scene and then a trailer of what looked like two people in a forbidden love on horseback... Each ending with "this Valentine's Day!". So maybe that threw off my expectations and had me expecting more of a romantic love story.
But this was not that.
I was very interested in the first third, wondering how we were going to go from this terrible story of the past, to the terrible "present" and somehow end up with a gorgeous love story in the middle.
I kept leaning over to my husband and asking: "isn't this a super famous book amongst teenagers and young adults? I can't figure out why so far...is it the bitter teenage characters constantly crying 'nobody understands me' or 'I can't get what I want'?"
I get having dark themes and unlikeable characters, but I just didn't get enjoyment out of the story. Any time I started rooting for a character, they gave me reason to hate them again.
I was a bit underwhelmed when I finished reading WH but no other book has grown in appreciation upon further reflection than this one. The two biggest things that stand out to me are the story structure -- particularly how part 2 seems to be a reverse mirror unwinding of part 1 - and the use of unreliable narrator. Once I started understanding that WH can be interpreted as the story of a hero told by his enemies (not saying that's the only interpretation or the "correct" one, just one of many perspectives the book presents) it really blew my love and respect of this novel out of the water.
Is there a character more paradoxical than Heathcliff in all of literature? Depending on how you interpret the text, he is both one of the greatest heroes and greatest villains of all time. He is one of the most celebrated romantic leads while also resembling a horror monster.
OP, do you like other gothic/romantic style writers? WH may be the most Gothic of them all: love, revenge, power, richess, dynasties, disease, pride, loss, supernatural influences, past sins revisited...personally I put it over Crime and Punishment, War and Peace, and Swann's Way (all of which are excellent in their own right.)
I kept thinking about this as I read it.
This aspect was pretty well written (though a tad confusing for me at certain parts), but it really frustrated me more with all the questions and disappointments I had at the end.
"This is all Nelly's/Lockwood/Z(illah?)'s perspective, and they sound pretty bias... How can we trust this part of the story?"
Maybe I'm a bit bias at the moment, having just finished it minutes ago and feeling disappointed at the ending, but I'm struggling to picture how Heathcliff could listen be interpreted as a hero.
I feel incredibly sorry for his he was treated in the beginning and don't blame him for seeking revenge, but once it went beyond those who had directly wronged him, he lost me.
What heroic thing am I missing/forgetting/misinterpreting?
You could see him as a hero who was wronged and took revenge into his own hands and successfully avenged himself on those that wronged him, although he's in this great tragedy where he can't avenge himself on Catherine because he loves her and she also loves him. The part where he's a villain though is the fact that his revenge scheme goes so far above those who hurt him and attacks the innocent children who had nothing to do with it and don't understand. Having said all that I don't think I would call him a hero myself, maybe not even a villain necessarily either but then what is he really, idk
Look, when I read it my reaction at first was to hate Heathcliff. How could this character be an all time romantic figure?
But consider what any hero would sound like when described by his enemies. If all you knew of MLK came from racist Southern segregationists, would we still be naming holidays after him? (Obviously an extreme example but I hope you see my point. Meanwhile, Romania considers Vlad the Impaler to be a hero.)
Heathcliff was a penniless orphan who came back to take control of both houses that wronged him either by physically torturing him daily or by stealing the love of his life. Yet he gives a home to the very people who had wronged him, and he stays devoted to love heart and soul through the very end like few others in literature.
For me, the characters aren't compelling. It's dry. Flat. Like a schoolbook. I'm turning pages dutifully, rather than because I care about the people or what happens to them. I tried to re-read it recently since it's mentioned here so often, but I just couldn't find anything to care about in the pages.
You've nailed it.
Yeah I think I relate to this, which is odd though because in the first 50 pages I was very interested, and kept reading and losing steam until page 200 or so where if I thought about it I would've realized exactly this, that I don't really care that much about them anymore
I just finished WH and this was my feeling as well. I found the descriptions of the characters' behavior, especially Cathy's, repetitive and shallow.
One issue that many people have with the book is that the characters are all unlikable. It makes it hard to get emotionally invested in books and stories where you hate everyone in it. Even Raskilnikov in Crime and Punishment, as a murderer, had redeeming qualities.
I felt a similar confusion about there being something wrong while reading On the Road until someone pointed out that the main characters are all filthy selfish beatniks that do nothing but leave chaos in their wake. I was confused about not connecting with the book because I felt revulsion towards these characters whereas I guess the author wanted me to identify with them.
Honestly I didn't consider this angle very much but you may be on to something. I could appreciate both Cathy's in spite of their flaws and meanness, and at times even liked them because of those things, they were innocent and impulsive but sometimes only mean because they were so heartfelt. Heathcliff is hard to like but I did feel compassion for him when his obvious soul mate and only friend was being taken from him as a boy. Afterward though, yeah, it's hard to handle him in any way at all and in the second half especially, the characters are all quite difficult to bear. It's funny that Heathcliff is so repulsive in his hatred, whereas if you think about the Count of Monte Cristo, he's on the contrary quite likeable and attractive in his hatred.
This also made me think about War and Peace and how much I loved that vs I hated Anna Karenina, and I've often thought the reason was I didn't enjoy the characters much at all, their personalities
I don’t know where this idea came from that we should like, or even appreciate, every piece of classic literature. It’s ok if you don’t like something. Now, there will be people who get their back up and say things like, “well, you just don’t get it.” However, that is not indicative of the reality: we don’t all like the same things.
There are plenty of classics I have started and never finished because I simply didn’t like them. Life’s too short to read fictional literature you don’t enjoy reading.
PS I wanted to tell someone this but haven't had a chance so - I went to the movies alone the other day and brought the book with me to read while I wait for the boring ads to pass. As I was reading in the theater suddenly I hear a 'Heathcliff' and I'm like wtf, I look up and see, coming February, Wuthering Heights. I had no idea they were making it, and I never go to the movies, I thought what are the chances that I go to the movies, I bring a book, the book happens to be this one, and there just happens to be an ad right now that they happen to making a movie of the book. I feel like it will be ... less than faithful to the book though lol
I agree with pretty much everyone here, but I just want to pipe up as one reader who has always loved the book. There are plenty of “greats” out there I don’t care for, but WH really got to me. Thanks for giving it a more than honest chance!
Maybe comparing it with titles which did land for you is the best way to figure out why, precisely, this didn't. Also looking at things which are near to Wuthering Heights, in tone, or subject matter, might throw light on your experience with it - if the disconnect in the writing and events is what's stopping you from fully investing in it, then Wilkie Collins or Mary Elizabeth Braddon (or most of the sensation writers) might be more effective.
It's not a book I go back to in order to dig deeper, or look for insights in, admittedly.-Not liking the characters is a sticking point with most commentaries on the book (there's some spectacularly harsh criticism of the writing, its morality, and.... pretty much everything, from immediately on publication) so you shouldn't feel alone in that. Some works have a very specific reader in mind, and are always going to push away others.
It’s not my job to help you figure that out. Reading is a deeply personal, subjective experience. It didn’t work for you. That’s totally fine. Move on.
dude it's called bouncing ideas off each other to figure something out lol you're acting like i don't realize the reason is personal and subjective, like yeah no shit but maybe if you have an idea that's completely different to mine we can talk about it and learn something...
Ma’am this is a Wendy’s
You don’t need to tie yourself in knots because you didn’t like a book. You didn’t like it, there’s your answer