Wuthering Heights
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 11:08 pm
I decided to read Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights mostly because I wanted to see how a female writer wrote women and compare it to how male's write them. I also wanted to see if a female writer could write a convincing male character. Tom Hardy's writing style had some forum members confessing that he couldn't write a decent female character. I couldn't see that. They seemed believable enough even though his Return of the Native was a terrible book.
Bronte's first male character, Mr. Lockwood, is effeminate. He's vexed, annoyed, and peeved at any impropriety. He's like a spoiled boy who's used to having his way and displays a temper at every little encumbrance or threat to his comfort. Combine this with his eye and imagination for romanticizing scenery and noticing little things a man would pay little attention too but one would assume might catch the eye of a woman - and there you have it. So my first inclination is that Bronte can not write a male character.
After the history of Wuthering Heights begins by Ellen, my opinion alters. The characters of Earnshaw, Heathcliff, and Linton are well written.
I wasn't alive during the 19th century and this would have been the surest way to tell whether she was truly writing believable male characters. I don't think human nature changes much but circumstances do dictate actions and the actions one commits should be appropriate to the circumstances, his/her character, culture, and position in society. Rank in society means little anymore but I imagine in the 1800's it still did. So a man must allow himself to feel and express feeling based on the limitations both internal and external.
I still feel she's allowed the male characters beyond Mr. Lockwood to be believable. It's only occasionally do they do things which are overly dramatic for their apparent temperament. Such as when Linton begins to quake before Heathcliff - that's something a male author might do better to express to his audience because it is no light matter. To a woman who merely describes the physical reaction of fear from a married man in his own home who is confronted by another man as a dumb shivering coward - just smacks of female mockery and fails to appreciate the duty of a man to protect his family and their belongings.
I can't deal with Bronte's character Joseph either. I can't understand a single word he says.
How the story is told to the reader is unique and Emily gets a special respect from me for it. The story itself is obviously written by a woman, though. It's not that it's concerned with romance that I say that. It's because of the quality of the female characters and the dialogue held between them. I don't think you can find two better written female characters than Catherine or Ellen. Everyone has met an Ellen. She is probably the best written character in the book. She is the self righteous nag. The obstinate average that never wavers from her mean and holds her thoughts above those with whom she's meant to serve. The indian who knows what is right for chief. Smart enough to do good and gain the confidence of others so her ego can lead them into some kind of disaster. I know women like this - the ones that are mildly intelligent and supremely closed minded. Inflexible people.
Inflexible people are abrasive but there is some nobility in their consistency.
That's my two cents on Emily Bronte. Her male characters are a little over dramatic and some are too effeminate. Her female characters I know to be expertly written because there is so much of them which I have been witness to in real life and yet do not understand. Catherine is a great example of this... everywhere at once and really truly only in one place. Maybe that's why Hardy had a hard time with it. He put his women, as men are, in a single place when really they're in 100000 places but really only in the one. I think the secret is in making the reader believe your female characters have lost their minds completely and then try to reconcile their insanity with some portion of a romantic reality.
Bronte's first male character, Mr. Lockwood, is effeminate. He's vexed, annoyed, and peeved at any impropriety. He's like a spoiled boy who's used to having his way and displays a temper at every little encumbrance or threat to his comfort. Combine this with his eye and imagination for romanticizing scenery and noticing little things a man would pay little attention too but one would assume might catch the eye of a woman - and there you have it. So my first inclination is that Bronte can not write a male character.
After the history of Wuthering Heights begins by Ellen, my opinion alters. The characters of Earnshaw, Heathcliff, and Linton are well written.
I wasn't alive during the 19th century and this would have been the surest way to tell whether she was truly writing believable male characters. I don't think human nature changes much but circumstances do dictate actions and the actions one commits should be appropriate to the circumstances, his/her character, culture, and position in society. Rank in society means little anymore but I imagine in the 1800's it still did. So a man must allow himself to feel and express feeling based on the limitations both internal and external.
I still feel she's allowed the male characters beyond Mr. Lockwood to be believable. It's only occasionally do they do things which are overly dramatic for their apparent temperament. Such as when Linton begins to quake before Heathcliff - that's something a male author might do better to express to his audience because it is no light matter. To a woman who merely describes the physical reaction of fear from a married man in his own home who is confronted by another man as a dumb shivering coward - just smacks of female mockery and fails to appreciate the duty of a man to protect his family and their belongings.
I can't deal with Bronte's character Joseph either. I can't understand a single word he says.
How the story is told to the reader is unique and Emily gets a special respect from me for it. The story itself is obviously written by a woman, though. It's not that it's concerned with romance that I say that. It's because of the quality of the female characters and the dialogue held between them. I don't think you can find two better written female characters than Catherine or Ellen. Everyone has met an Ellen. She is probably the best written character in the book. She is the self righteous nag. The obstinate average that never wavers from her mean and holds her thoughts above those with whom she's meant to serve. The indian who knows what is right for chief. Smart enough to do good and gain the confidence of others so her ego can lead them into some kind of disaster. I know women like this - the ones that are mildly intelligent and supremely closed minded. Inflexible people.
Inflexible people are abrasive but there is some nobility in their consistency.
That's my two cents on Emily Bronte. Her male characters are a little over dramatic and some are too effeminate. Her female characters I know to be expertly written because there is so much of them which I have been witness to in real life and yet do not understand. Catherine is a great example of this... everywhere at once and really truly only in one place. Maybe that's why Hardy had a hard time with it. He put his women, as men are, in a single place when really they're in 100000 places but really only in the one. I think the secret is in making the reader believe your female characters have lost their minds completely and then try to reconcile their insanity with some portion of a romantic reality.