In which carbonel reads Wuthering Heights

[carbonel]

I have several multi-year projects going. For my Netflix watching, I've been slowly working my way through Leonard Maltin's four-star list since 2000, and am halfway done.

For my bathroom reading, I've been selecting unread or read-so-long-ago-I've-forgotten books from the paperback fiction shelves in alphabetical order. I've been at it several years, and am still on the B's. What came to my hand most recently was Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, which I'm now about a third of the way through. And honestly, if this were an SF or fantasy novel, it probably would have been put on the "take to the bookstore for credit" pile long ago. The only likeable character in the whole thing is Nelly, and she's basically a plot device.

So tell me, people who like this book -- why should I keep reading? Despite my OCD tendencies toward completism, I keep thinking how much I'm not having any fun. So what should I be learning, if there is a greater purpose than enjoyment in reading this? (For the sake of calibration, I love and reread all of Jane Austen's published novels (with modified rapture about Mansfield Park), and quite enjoyed Jane Eyre, the only other Bronte I've tried, the one time I read it.) I really do want to know; I'm not just kvetching. Though I will grant that I'm also kvetching.

Comments

[pameladean]

That's a different Bronte, though.

I have never really seen the appeal of Wuthering Heights, although it has some interesting uses of the setting as character. And the embedded narratives are interesting too, though not atypical of novels of the time.

Villette is equally wacked and much more interesting, and The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is better too.

P.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I've never read Wuthering Heights (and tried and failed to read Pride and Prejudice on the Kindle) so this is an aside:

Make it a "read the book, see the movie" thing. Bull through the book, but put an adaption on your Netflix queue and compare. I've found that to be loads of fun.

[guppiecat]

I read all of Wuthering Heights. I did not much enjoy it.

It is, perhaps, more enjoyable when placed into historical context (like Mansfield Park) and I lacked that context when I read it. However, if you're not enjoying it, you should probably stop. There are lot of books out there and many of them are much more enjoyable than Wuthering Heights.

And besides, once you hit the C's, you get to read Calvino. (Did you miss Borges? 'cause Borges is better than Bronte by far.)

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

IMHO, you should just stop reading it if you don't like it. I haven't read it since high school, but I don't think it's going to get any better as it goes along. As I dimly recall, it's mostly about the heartbreak of loving a tragic bad boy, and the larger tragedy of restricted life choices.

I found it all terribly romantic as a teenager, but I've always been a sucker for literary bad boys. Honestly, I think it's more of a 19th century guilty pleasure than a great novel, so if it's not a pleasure why read it?

[carose59.livejournal.com]

Wuthering Heights has been one of my favorite books since I was 12, but that doesn't mean it's to your taste. I like Heathcliff, and Cathy. *g* Maybe teenage angst is a necessary ingredient to enjoying the book.

If you do decide to see one of the movie adaptations, try the one with Timothy Dalton. It only covers the first half of the book, but Dalton's a wonderful Heathcliff.

[ursula]

I agree that the embedded narratives are interesting.

Personally, I think the main reason to read Wuthering Heights is so you can get more of the jokes in Cold Comfort Farm.

[alexfandra.livejournal.com]

I read it decades ago during college because I was studying 19th century literature, and I LOATHED it. Still do. STOP NOW and save your sanity.

I ADORE "Cold Comfort Farm". Much the better way to go.

[txanne.livejournal.com]

I read the whole thing, wanting nothing more than to smack every single character repeatedly with a brick. Charlotte is much the better writer, in my opinion. (Jane Eyre is great. Villette is GOBSMACKINGLY WONDERFUL.)

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I have never been able to finish that book. The characters are so unpleasant and the story just keeps getting more depressing.

Get rid of it and read Villette (by Charlotte) or The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (by Anne) instead. (If you're into audiobooks, there was a adaptation of Villette starring Catherine McCormack which was very good.)

[beamjockey.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't know-- I've never wuthered.

Wuthering Heights

[eileenlufkin.livejournal.com]

It's not a favorite, but I have enjoyed reading Wuthering Heights. One thing is that you are not supposed to agree with or admire Heathcliff or Cathy. I hate the Kate Beaton cartoon Dude Watching with the Brontes. I picture Emily in heaven shouting "What is wrong with you people! I didn't make him a romantic hero! I made him kill a puppy! What does it take!"

Also by the end of the book Cathrine grows into a very likable character, but if you're really not enjoying it, it is quite true that Villett is even better.

[ckd]

In my opinion, Wuthering Heights is best appreciated for what it's given us that doesn't require reading it: a Kate Bush song (later covered by the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain, among others) and a Monty Python sketch.

[carbonel]

I thought Cold Comfort Farm owed more to the works of Thomas Hardy, but I hadn't read any of either when I first read CCF -- which I enjoyed immensely.

[carbonel]

I don't own any Borges, but I have a couple of Calvinos -- The Castle of Crossed Destinies and If On a Winter's Night a Traveller.

[carbonel]

Only kippled?

[guppiecat]

Do you need to borrow Borges?

I think I have some loaner copies.

He is truly one of the modern masters.

[carbonel]

Not sure about "need," but if you have a starter Borges to recommend, I'd be willing to give that one a try. I tend to think of Borges as further along the "literary" spectrum than interests me, but I'm game.

[guppiecat]

Ficciones is the best starter.

Personally, I consider him much less "literary" than people like Bronte (and Hugo, Dickens or [insert overblown classic American author here]). He's much more like the SF authors from the 1950's. Most of his stories are idea-based and fairly short. He's hard to read in a run, but one story a day is a good pace.

[aedifica]

I think it depends on your tolerance for co-dependent characters. I wanted to send them all to therapy--I think they could have been much happier in the end!