Review Commentary: Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë

Because sometimes you feel like going down memory lane.

I originally wrote this review back in October 2021. I’ve grown as a writer and reader since then, so I thought it’d be interesting to give you a little update on what I think about this infamous classic. My new thoughts will be in bold.

---

Summary: Heathcliff should have stayed away.

---

Having seen an adaptation, I thought I would dislike this book. But it’s actually pretty good. I think I sound very young, inexperienced and possibly cutesy in these older reviews. Nowadays I am erudite…and still a cutesy, casual cucumber who loves alliteration a little too much. Anyway…

The story starts with a man renting a house from Heathcliff. After visiting his landlord one frosty evening, he returns to his home, gets a cold and promptly has to stay in bed for an extended time. Which is the most Victorian thing that could happen. Did anyone from that time get sick and not become bedridden/die? Seeking diversion, he asks his housekeeper to relay what she can of Heathcliff’s history and, by extension, the two families of Thrushcross Grange—his temporary home—and Wuthering Heights. We need to bring back naming homes. Would you rather say, “This is my home,” or, “This is my home, Springtide Manor.”

What I did not expect is that the story is not told by the famous characters, but the housekeeper, Ellen. I quickly realized what a smart choice Brontë made. If it stayed inside Heathcliff’s or Catherine’s heads, the emotions would overpower everything. It’d be one long journey through bitter tears, intense depression, and cries of pain and passion. Instead, it’s the saner, more objective, yet still vivid, picture of events. I wasn’t sure how the last half would keep the momentum, but I continued to be invested until the end, even though some plot points reoccur. I never hear anyone talk about Ellen. Obviously it beggars belief that she was able to know and remember all the stuff that happened, but she is a champ.

This story is not a happy one. It’s full of false love, deep hatred, restrained and unrestrained violence, debilitating fear, and crushed hope. Despite the bad things that happen—and I do mean BAD THINGS—the tone isn’t completely bleak. It is probably one of the bleakest unfolding of events that I have read. Aside from Ellen and the dude who gets sick, everyone’s fate is blighted and it is objectively horrible. And yet… The events Ellen describes all took place years ago, so the terror and despondency has dimmed and it’s easier, for me, to “enjoy” it. Had Heathcliff or Catherine narrated it I don’t think it would’ve been bearable. We’re talking Russian literature levels of despair and agony, though it’s not quite to the place where I just end up laughing because it’s so unbelievably expressive. It’s a more grounded hysteria, if you will. I don’t like the story in and of itself, but it resembles a train wreck that you can’t look away from: you have to know if it could get any worse. And it does. Repeatedly. But I wanted to finish it because it wasn’t just continual gloom and that impressed me. How could a story so bad turn out to be good?

I think the main factor is Ellen the champ. She is the confidant of almost all the characters and she’s the best person to have for this tale (especially since she can remember conversations verbatim from decades ago). She dislikes Heathcliff, doesn’t really care for Catherine and is rightfully “convinced that the Grange had but one sensible soul in its walls, and that lodged in my body.” Her insights are correct most of the time and even when she makes mistakes in judgment, it’s totally understandable. I like her. Still checks out.

Heathcliff’s “presence is a moral poison that would contaminate the most virtuous.” What a line. Your average modern book just doesn’t have the same punch. He is the villain and beyond saving. He is abusive in every sense of the word and incapable of kindness, mercy, thoughtfulness or even base consideration. The guy hangs dogs! For the pleasure of it! His hatred of others and the desire to inflict pain is what keeps him going. At one point I wondered why he doesn’t just kill himself if he’s that miserable. But misery loves company and he is a lonely man, so of course he would choose endless pain and antipathy. And yet I’m sure there are some women who’d say, “I can save him.” I don’t understand why anyone thinks there is even a shred of a whisper of romance in this book. This is what he says about his wife:

“If she desired to go, she might: the nuisance of her presence outweighs the gratification to be derived from tormenting her!”

How romantic.

And a line to Catherine:

“I want you to be aware that I know you have treated me infernally—infernally! Do you hear? And if you flatter yourself that I don’t perceive it, you are a fool; and if you think I can be consoled by sweet words, you are an idiot; and if you fancy I’ll suffer unrevenged, I’ll convince you of the contrary, in a very little while!”

Holy hot potatoes! Dracula is (outwardly) nicer than this! It is a great quote though, and it encapsulates his relentless villainy quite well.

So tell me, what of that is romantic, endearing or likable? Forget Umbridge; Heathcliff is the worst villain ever. If we’re just talking about books, he is definitely in my top three most hated characters. I’m not sure who the other two would be (Umbridge might take a slot), but Heathcliff managed to create an enduring hatred in me and for that, I still hate him.

I don’t see how Catherine could love him, except she’s not much any better. She treats people like dirt, toys with their feelings, cries when she doesn’t get her way and is governed by her emotions in terrible ways. This is the one time when a gender-swapped version would end up being the exact same story.

Her “romance” with Heathcliff isn’t the main focus but its impact is felt to the end. Which is interesting because it’s one of the main things this book is known for. It seems to me they would destroy the world out of pure spite and without a thought for anyone else just to prove their love. I don’t think that’s desirable. She says “Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.” and that’s a fine thing to say, but hardly romantic considering how dreadful they both are. I have a mug with that quote on it—I did not buy it; I won it in a giveaway—and it’s one of my favorite mugs.

Edgar and Isabella are caught in the “romantic” riptide. They are siblings and share a weakness of spirit and a susceptibility to the manipulations of the chaotic duo. I feel sorry for their lot but at the same time, how could they not see the dangers they were headed toward? I think characters who are mentally and physically weak, a.k.a. supreme doormats, are insanely frustrating to read about. Just get one vertebra, please.

Later, the children of these characters come to the forefront and they mimic their predecessors. My least favorite of them is Linton because he is so fragile (emotionally and physically), and he lets that rule him to the point where he will pretend to have a fit just to get attention. Ellen says he is “The worst-tempered bit of a sickly slip that ever struggled into its teens.” I cannot abide whiny, worthless, lazy, demanding children (so true); but of course Catherine jr. is enamored with him and wants to “make such a pet of him.”

Hareton might be okay except for the fact that he is also abusive. As Ellen observes of him: I thought I could detect in his physiognomy a mind owning better qualities than his father ever possessed. Good things lost amid a wilderness of weeds, to be sure, whose rankness far overtopped their neglected growth; yet, notwithstanding, evidence of a wealthy soil, that might yield luxuriant crops under other and favourable circumstances. I know they (meaning Catherine’s and Heathcliff’s children) had little to no experience with the outside world, but it still hurts to watch them repeat the same mistakes of their forebears. SPOILERS FOR THIS VERY OLD BOOK: I did not expect Catherine to die at the mid point. The adaptation I saw ends with her death and I figured it couldn’t be that different from the book. So as a friendly PSA, if you, for some reason, have said that you read WH when you actually only saw an adaptation that stops when Catherine dies, don’t enter into a discussion about the book, ‘cause you don’t know the other half of it.

The book is mostly dialogue and since I like conversations, I have no issues with that. There is this one character who speaks with a Yorkshire dialect and I barely understood a word he said and had to rely on people’s reactions to infer his meanings. Luckily he doesn’t have much to say.

“We’s hae a crowner’s ‘quest enow, at ahr folks. One on ‘em’s a’most getten his fingers cut off wi’ hauding t’other’s fro’ stickin hisseln loike a cawlf.”

Best guess at a translation: “We have a coroner’s inquest tomorrow, at our folks. One of them almost had his fingers cut off with/while holding the other’s from sticking himself like a calf/cough/cowl/cauliflower.” Still doesn’t make any sense.

The rest of the talking is fine but I had to reread a few lines to better get their meaning. Because everyone has their emotions on overdrive it can sound exaggerated and ridiculous and it’s not uncommon for someone to cry for hours or flail in abject agony. So maybe it is like Russian lit. That’s another thing that makes this tale not quite so dark: I can’t take any of these people seriously because none of the reactions seem real. Yeah, scratch what I said earlier, this sounds suspiciously like my The Brothers Karamoz experience.

Unlike Jane Eyre, the description isn’t prominent. I expected long paragraphs of internal monologue and desolate sludge, but instead it’s brief, and yet impactful. I don’t think anyone could say they don’t know what the moors look like after reading it. That is a positive of this book: it has a strong atmosphere and years later it’s one of the things that sticks out in my memory.

I do not think it’s better than Jane Eyre (which is one of my top classics), or even as good. Jane really capitalizes on its use of first person narration and it also has a far more bearable cast. I also prefer the overall writing of Jane but they both feel similar and I would guess the authors helped edit/critique each other’s works. I kinda want to try The Tenant of Wildfell Hall to get the full Brontë experience. Still haven’t read it, but it is on the list. Again though, we need houses to have names.

I’m surprised by how much this didn’t suck and I might even, at some point, read it again. To summarize, I would say I like the way this book is written, just not what is written. I suppose I would consider re-reading it at some point in the distant future, but I would not say it is required reading. Unless you like horrifying characters and great landscape descriptions. Otherwise I think it’s enough if you know the name “Heathcliff,” and that anyone who refers to WH as a romance is delusional.

Meanwhile, the young man had slung on to his person a decidedly shabby upper garment, and, erecting himself before the blaze, looked down on me from the corner of his eyes, for all the world as if there were some mortal feud unavenged between us.

My presence in his sanctum was evidently esteemed a piece of impudence too shameful for remark…

Alright. Horrifying characters, great landscape descriptions and top-notch insults.

---

Would you be interested in more review commentaries?

---

Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to like, comment, share, and subscribe if you haven’t yet! You can show your support by leaving a tip on my Buy Me A Coffee page.