A writer friend once told me that you can tell a lot about a woman's romantic nature by asking which classic she prefers -- Wuthering Heights or Pride and Prejudice. In her opinion WH types are inclined towards bad boys like Heathcliff, whereas P&P types make more sensible choices.
That's spot on as far as I'm concerned. I find Heathcliff incredibly sexy. Sure, he's vile and vengeful, but he's one of the most original and fascinating bad boys in literature. He's dark and sensual. He's wild and passionate. He's the ultimate 'harden the fuck up' hero who doesn't suffer spoiled, insipid fools.
But am I the only one who gets him?
Film characterisations are usually woeful. OK Tom Hardy did a pretty good job in the recent ITV mini-series, even though he doesn't look dark enough for a gypsy. But most actors fall well short of Heathcliff's darkly complex mark. They're often kinda namby-pamby. Urgh.
What disappoints me more, though, is the fact that young fans of the book leave messages on the web wailing about what a monster Heathcliff is. OMG. They're outraged at the way he treated Isabella. They can't understand why he keeps pining for a woman who married another man. They think Edgar Linton's a better deal anyhow.
What's the matter with WH types of today? Are they really Twilight types who like their bad boys pretty and girly? Urgh.
I've got my own Heathcliff at home, thank you very much, but I'd love to see Emily Bronte's done justice on the screen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
love a period drama. not sure that either heathcliff or edgar are any good though. isabella was impossibly annoying too. so guess that makes me bat for the other team then? romantically speaking.
ReplyDeletekeep up the musings!
Rell,
ReplyDeleteSo you have your own Heathcliff and you still love him; how wonderful for both of you.
You raise two questions, the novel and the lead character. Let me address the novel first. WH wins hands down. P&P is formulaic. Most authors build a world and project themselves through their lead. The character represents an idealised version of themselves. In the novel the obstacles they overcome exist only to show how resourceful they are. The reader lives through the hero(ine) and so each novel appeals to a certain demographic. Ian Fleming created James bond to show that a British Intelligence agent could save the world and get the girl by driving fast, shooting straight and punching hard. This was Ian’s portrait of the alpha male. Agatha Christie created Miss Maples to show that an old woman with a sharp hat pin and a sharper mind could succeed where the entire British Police force failed. And of course Jane Austin showed that a daughter of a down-on-his-luck country gentleman could still win the heart of the richest man in the shire. In each case the reader gets to live out their fantasy.
WH on the other hand created deeply flawed characters whose lives ended in tragedy. We don’t see them as idealised versions of ourselves although we have all been in doomed love affairs at some time and so can identify with the overwhelming passion they feel. It does not follow a formula, it is not a wish fulfilment and so in my view is a far better story.
Now we turn to the leading men. P&P does not focus on the man any more than Ian Fleming focused on James Bond’s love interests. He is merely the prize to be won.
WH has created two wonderfully flawed characters. (Cathy is as interesting as Heathcliff). Heathcliff is a wild man overwhelmed by a passion that is bigger than he. It is a wonderfully romantic notion but intensely impractical. A woman is attracted to him because he is the biggest baddest dog in the pack. If he was her man he would bring fight the other men and bring the biggest share of the kill to her cave. But because he is selfish and cruel he would fail as a long term partner. Even in the story he turns against her. He is a wolf when most women want a tame dog to do their bidding. Like the wolf he is being bred out because modern society has no room for him. The Heathcliffs of today fill our jails and the real heroes of our age are nerds who found computer companies.
This loss of the romantic wild man has been going on for millennia. The myth of Cain and Able and the myth of Jacob and Esau each record the time when the domesticated crop farmers displaced the wild hunters and herdsmen. I’m sorry dear but the meek have inherited the earth.
CJS
V interesting perspective, CJS. I know you're right about the hunters and herdsmen, but I'm a hopeless optimist by nature. I don't think the world is getting worse. The meek have always been able to do well if they're canny and persuasive. And wild souls can still flourish if they're strategic. In a way, WH says that. The next generation (Cathy jnr and Hareton) are strong and wild and real, but less wounded, more grounded. Good for them.
ReplyDeleteRell,
ReplyDeleteThat would be the highlander in you; you're not yet fully domesticated. Your novel sounds like it may embody that spirit. Is the goth a younger you?
My own ancestry is mixed Scott and German so we have this in common. Have you ever read Boswell's poem, Clan Alpin's Vow? It wonderfully captures the spirit of the highlanders before we were tamed.
CJS