/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3723556]

What does /lit/ think about Wuthering Heights?

I think it's not a lovestory, like everyone says. It's more like a story of loss and hate.

What really bothered me about this book was that everyone was an idiot except for Heathcliff. Seriously, characters who were supposed to be like 19 (Catherine Linton) acted like 13 year olds.

Also, I had to keep looking up words.

[Anonymous No.3723557]

Nothing the Romanticists wrote is worth reading

[Anonymous No.3723562]

>>3723557
>Not liking the plupart of the 18th century novels.

Then what do YOU read?

[Anonymous No.3723576]

>>3723562
I don't read drivel written by excessively sentimental well-educated aristocratic women who had no access to politics or science and so were forced to redirect there (not-insignificant) literary talents into to banal morass of coming-to-age-cum-idealistic-romantic-love stories

[Anonymous No.3723577]

I also thought the supposed main-character, Lockwood, was a weak character.

Trying to be educated, but no spine whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.3723586]

>>3723576
Well I agree that this should not be your average reading material, but you need to have read at least some of these works. Wuthering Heights isn't "drivel" in my opinion. It was written fairly well, and the only thing that really bothered me was the transparency of the characters.

Also, aristocratic women were more educated than you might think.

[Anonymous No.3723589]

>>3723576
>>3723586
Scrap the last line, for it makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.3723592]

>>3723557
>Thinking Emily Brontë was a Romantic

>>3723562
Thinking Wuthering Heights was written in the 18th century

>>3723576
>Thinking Emily Brontë was sentimental, well-educated, OR aristocratic

>>3723577
>Thinking Lockwood isn't supposed to be an idiot

Jesus Christ. This thread is unthinkably painful. You are all a bunch of idiots.

[Anonymous No.3723595]

>>3723592
Oh, and also,

>>3723576
>Thinking there is anything idealistic or romantic about Wuthering Heights.

Things just keep getting worse.

[Anonymous No.3723598]

>>3723592
19th century, my bad.

[Anonymous No.3723608]

>>3723557
>hoffmann, schleiermacher, novalis, schlegel
>not worth reading

Enlightened faggot
I bet you read kant

[Anonymous No.3723612]

>>3723592
Father was a Cambridge-educated priest. Pretending that the Brontes weren't sentimental doesn't change the fact that they were. To pretend that they weren't well educated shows you don't know anything

[Anonymous No.3723626]

>>3723612
If you think murdering a woman's dog, kidnapping her, and then forcing her to bear you a child so you can steal her house is sentimental, you're twice as dumb as you originally let on. Not to mention the necrophilia which is a central theme of the novel. And none of the Brontë sisters even went to school. Being homeschooled by their dad in some middle of nowhere parish doesn't qualify as "well-educated", even by the standards of women in the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.3723631]

>>3723557
>>3723576
>stop liking what I don't like

Back to /v/ with you.

[Anonymous No.3723632]

>>3723556
I think you bought the wrong edition

[Anonymous No.3723636]

[Anonymous No.3723641]

Fucking modern day publishers. They take a work by the great Ellis Bell and stick some cunt's name on it to try an sell it to chicks. Lowest of the fucking low.

[Anonymous No.3723664]

>>3723632
Oh I don't have that edition. I just looked up the image of a cover.

[Anonymous No.3723678]

Anyone else really hate romanticism? Making the artist out to be some kind of individualistic, charismatic conduit of unbridled expression might be the wrongest idea since geocentrism.

[Anonymous No.3725808]

Wuthering Heights is my favourite novel, I love the pure unbridled passion that possesses Catherine and Heathcliff. There are some great speeches, the little bit of Gothic in it blah blah yeah