Heathcliff is more an opportunistic villain than a noble anti hero. He takes all the promise of wealth and love at face value without being told "It's just a maybe, it's no a definitive yes." he becomes entitled and thinks he deserves the house and the love.
The only way this shit works is that Cathy and her father are retarded(and so is everyone else for allowing them) to invite a random gypsy in their house and tell everyone "treat him and love him like your own" for what? what purpose? Did the gypsy save her father? Did Heathcliff show any kind of noble heroic act to make him deserving of wealth and love?
I hate movies which skip on the motivation because the writer is too careless to come up with one. Even when Heatcliff fucks off the writer just skips his entire life story. Great Expectations had more well-rounded character motivations which the audience can understand clearly.
As for the world design and age it's said in. No sir I also didn't like that. The action happens in some murky swamp marshes like in Great Expectations, when originally I was expecting lush green forests with chirping birds like in a fairy tale.
Also all that bullshit poetry+prophecies tied with nature, I was expecting the story to actually have fantasy and supernatural themes rather than just show off how stupidly superstitious and immature rednecks are to believe retarded shit like "If today is a bad weather then your whole life will be shit" thanks ... Britain always has bad weather, you fucking idiot.
So yeah decent idea, but mediocre to shit execution. And this shit was considered high art back then? I consider this shit just 1 step above Twilight because the bitch knows how to cheaply tug at your heart strings by using "Your dad is dead now you're mine, asshole. Live in the barn and do my chores" as a crutch.
I don’t understand how anyone could call Heathcliff an Anti-Hero He was nothing but a manipulative psychopath
Brandon Russell
I would have understood Heathcliff's revenge on someone who actually deserved that treatment. But as it is Heathcliff is just a whiny little entitled bitch.
Also very weird that in the end they did go with the supernatural way by turning Catherine into a ghost that sends Heathcliff to heaven, but they never had Cathy's ghost say haunt Heathcliff and torture him, Heathcliff didn't get bitten by dogs to near death like Cath did. At most Heathcliff just got a little abused by Catherine's brother to do chores around the farm and sleep in the barn. Not exactly the "You kidnapped my daughter and forced her to marry your dying son so you can inherit the house" kind of treacherous bullshit Heathcliff pulled off.
Catherine's retardation and infatuation with him was also pretty infuriating, just like her father. Through the whole book I wanted an intellectual edgy character who's beat the living shit out of all 3 of them and tell them to stop being mentally retarded.
Catherine siding with Heathcliff in some parts of the stories made me realize this book needed a third character to beat the living the shit out of both of them, because they're both retards.
Elijah Foster
It seems like all drama stories centered around redneck establishments are forced and generally anti intellectual. Like Anne of Green Gables. The story has no real life lesson to tell and no real intellectual characters inside it, all the characters are idiots so the plot can work.
I mean if the movie has to make Heathcliff look like Tarzan instead of a dirty ugly gypsy just so the audience can remotely understand Catherine's love for him, then the book obviously fucked up everyone's motivations.
What was the moral of story? don't trust gypsies? don't promise bullshit to homeless people otherwise they become entitled? thanks we kinda naturally know not to invite smelly strangers in our house for no good reason. Catherine's father seemed genuinely senile in the story, even her brother said it.
Luke Ramirez
The book is about the nigh-satanic metaphysical nature of love. Transcendence trapped by society only to enrapture it through the schizo-visionary character of Catherine (“I am Heathcliff.” Just dwell on that for a little bit).
Materialist/social reading of the book might be frustrating, but as a psychological horror novel about eternal return, the relationship between agony and ecstasy, and the fatal twins (Heathcliff is probably Catherine’s half-brother; think of his unexplained and messy arrival into the house “discovered” by their father, probably from a secret union). Also pay more attention to the dogs and to Catherine’s “crazy” rants.
Also no movie has really captured the essence of the book. Not even to be that guy, I was a cinema guy before a lit guy but this is an example of horrible misreading and focus on the wrong part.
Tldr try again but watch Cathy. Don’t be afraid to be turned on either.
Adrian Bailey
I think judging a piece of media outside of its intended genre, idea, direction is good to a limit.
I think if Heathcliff was a genuine anti hero then the story would had been worse, like every story which did "bad guy turned good by innocent girl" stories. It would had been generic.
However if the story took place in a lush green forest and PROPERLY implemented supernatural and fantasy themes then it would had been better. At the same if the characters didn't act like lusty idiots with no motivation it would had been better. At the same if Heathcliff and Catherine had to team up as 2 ex-lover rivals against a third party who hates them to death then it would had been a better story. Hell it would have shown what a horrible human being love can turn you into, just like Emily wanted to show. Just better executed.
But back in the 1850s rednecks were all horrible human beings a few steps away from being serial killers and thieves. So the Bront sisters think this kind of behaviour is normal and typical of humans. The Bront sisters never implement a "sane normal intellectual straightman" individual to contrast with their horribly natured characters.
Parker Myers
i agree that the book is intellectual, but i disagree in that there are no intellectual characters; the nurse nelly is the intellectual character, and she is supposed to come up short because her rationality (reinforcing the dominant masculine structure of society, i.e. pushing cathy and heath away from each other, keeping heath in his social place, calling cathy crazy, etc) is supposed to fail in the face of pure ecstatic vision. Intellectualism is also seen as impotent, e.g. the Linton father and son.
Of course if you go into the book with an air of intellectualism you will think the book has no meaning. You truly >didnt get it You are being lampooned in the book. >picrelated is you thinking you are smart by dismissing this book as anti-intellectual
I think maybe this is a personal taste thing.. of course you can say a book might be better if x happened instead of y, but that really only means that 'you' would have liked it better if it better fit 'your' vision.
>PROPERLY implemented supernatural themes
Again, lust/love bubbles up uncontrollably and lashes out as a violent force in the novel. there is a sadistic bent to Cathy and Heath that draw them together; It is not a mortality tale. It's supposed to be uncomfortable, strange, and full of 'lusty idiots.'
Gabriel Morales
*anti-intellectual
Evan Lewis
I like that you don't like it. I'll watch as it makes you pointlessly indignant. But not like how you watch things. I'm not obsessed. It's just like horoscopes, isn't it?
Alexander Garcia
God I wish these writers would see my criticism for their books. Yeah but where's the third party? Oh there it is... they're sitting idly by like a bunch of idiots while Catherine and Heathcliff are ruining both families with their lovers quarrel.
Huh... you know even in a normal storytelling for children usually the 2 families would come together and formulate a plan to rid them of these 2 toxic idiots ruining their lives.
Guess not in the 1850s where everything has to be forced, boring, passive and unimaginative as hell. Oh wait no that's just Emily's unimaginative brain. And the Bront's sisters collective edge edge donut steel. I hated the masochistic crap sacharrine world of Anne of Green Gables and I think Jane Eyre is an even more boring edgelord than Calimity Jane and Batman.
What the fuck kind of conditions did these kids live in that they only know how to write assholes and mentally unstable characters?
Should I have implemented an environmental curse, a love potion, a witch cursing them? Should I have revealed Heathcliff was actually a bastard son the old man forgot about? Should I have made Catherine as much of a psychopathic manipulating bitch as Heathcliff to make the dynamic stronger and equally destroy the family she married into? NAAAHH
Great Expectations despite being about a pathetic wimpy moron did the story side and twists and secrets pretty good. I just wish the character wasn't such a lamb compared to Emily's bullies and "wild" characters as she described them.
You know I felt the same exact feelings of love/hate, obsession, isolation, insanity, depression, psychopathy as Emily described. Except I did it for my parents. Which is infinitely more honorable than "muh teenage love". Guess Emily has no sense of morality, let alone creativity.
Joshua Hill
sorry didnt realize i was being baited, carry on
Jackson Collins
unironically >have truly life-changing sex and or >do shrooms and reread, report back
>very weird that they go supernatural at the end >at the end >totally missed the whole ghost story/participation in eternity cathy identity kino
this is the problem with bringing your own opinion of a book into a book before you've even read it. i should have been tipped off by >through the whole book I wanted an intellectual edgy character who's beat the living shit out of all 3 of them >pic related is you
>Redneck calling others plebs Go back and relate to Anne's horrible childhood you 2 square farmer. Stay jealous of superior books with actual ideas and real characters in them.
Hunter Bailey
i read three times and still dont get it, guess im not intellectual enough
Adam Jenkins
wuthering heights is the twin peaks of victorian lit
OP is decrying the book because of the soap opera and fell asleep during the dream sequences. he also is deaf and did not hear the music calling from the trees the whole time... youtube.com/watch?v=khMlcTE7lw8
Christian Rogers
No staph xD you're suppose to hate it. He's a horrible human being with no other motivation other than his hormones and his hatred because others treated him badly. No srly stttopp it xX oohhh~ All of the Bront sisters' characters are all disgusting good for nothing shallow malicious assholes who have nothing more than a peanut in each of their heads.
Are you listening? They're not impressive suave, charming. They're pathetic bullies and wannabe super antagonists. There's nothing elegant and professional about them. Their plan only works because they're surrounded by characters even dumber than them. They're all forced tools for the plot rather than characters of their own.
There's nothing extraordinary about them, they're as plain and dumb as they come. Don't get wooed by their dialogue. The Bront Sisters could have been lawyers at their time. They're just as soulless and silver tongued as them. They're talentless hacks without a shred of humanity and idea in them.
An eloquent vocabulary doesn't make you intelligent and creative, it makes you a douchebag who can appear intelligent in the face of illiterate idiots. The Bront Sisters are con men.
Lucas Jones
footnote connecting this to this in reference to OP, did you read the book or only watch the movie?
You're, you're already jerking off to this and imagining the Bront sisters molesting you and calling you their bitch boy, aren't you?
Zachary Miller
unironically hard and not even a coomposter >tfw only coomposters will get traffic in this board, and barely anyone to defend this book in light of such a flat and pseud analysis as OP's
I've seen some old portraits in my time, but Jesus. Why do they look so evil and judgemental?
Andrew White
Well at least we're on equal grounds. I always pick a media with a small but dedicated fanbase and tell them why the thing they love sucks ass and is over glorified drivel.
Christopher Reyes
Yea Forums
Is this a board of pseuds? Who will take it upon themselves to discuss this book?
To defend (or attack, hopefully in a manner more effective than OP's infantile and confused rants) this piece of literature? Instead of contributing to philosophical circlejerks based on wikipedia entries and bookshelf threads?
>this book is about our repressed feelings exploding out of their societal bounds and enrapturing us, our morals, and our RATIONAL FACULTIES in a chaos of misery allying us with eternal powers of darkness and obsessive, indulgent, impossible love >OP so stuck on plot mechanics and his projected plot that he doesn't comprehend the book >OP concludes that the book must be close-minded and stupid, rather than he
So pretentious and dumb just like the book. How about you represent it better next time before pretending you're something you're not?
Jason Torres
OUT ON THE WILEY WINDY MOORS WE'D FALL AND ROLL IN GREEN
Mason Clark
fucking based
Julian Brown
Nope, you're all alone. Judging by the minimal fanboying in this thread you can tell how "good" the Bronte sisters books are. Everyone's love for it is superficial. Just a tiny "dedicated" fanbase that yells "Don't touch my holy cow". Nobody intellectual is willing to defend or attack them because they don't attract intelligent people.
They're nothing but overglorified trash like every "classical" media. Casa Blanca can suck my dick.
The actual quality media done by intelligent and talented people are never overly popular holy cows pretending they defined the genre.
This isn't my first rodeo. I always attack relatively unfavorable but attentionwhoring media pretending it's flawless and superior to everyone else.
The books aren't horrible, but they're not amazing either and I'd say not even good. Full of flaws, full of basic flaws too. Ranging from bad to mediocre. It's the big fish in a small pond syndrome in some cases.
Everyone thinks I'm a monster for judging the baby as an adult, but when you bullshit that he's an adult and he doesn't hold up to scrutiny then don't come crying back like a little bitch.
Mason Gray
>societal bounds They lived in the middle of nowhere. What societal bounds? None of the characters are rational and the "adult" figures are trash. >allying us with eternal powers of darkness Where? where? Oh right, you were being figurative again.
Adam Price
As long as I am wide awake this thread will never rest in peace. I curse you to linger on this board till I go to sleep.
>screencapping this thread and showing it to my Harvard educated Victorian Lit prof at office hours.
I don't even care if it's autism i just want to see her reaction.
Eli Wood
post results
Jordan Stewart
Anne of Green Gables? What are you talking about, that shares almost nothing with Wuthering Heights outside of a rural setting. It's beautiful, funny, and the characters are charming. They aren't idiots and many of them have a deep appreciation for literature.
Don't come at LM Montgomery, she's my girl
Jayden Perry
>Anne of Green Gables? >It's beautiful, funny, and the characters are charming. What the fuck is beautiful and charming about an abused orphan forced to make friends with disgusting people and a malevolent pseudo intellectual of a teacher?
Tell her she's a disgusting edgy gypsy/redneck if she appreciates this sadomasochistic story for drama-loving turds like this guy There's 2 types of drama; immature redneck drama and serious drama. Redneck drama is between 2 shallow people who create problems for themselves. They often face pathetic problems which any average person could easily overcome through effort or a little human ingenuity and understanding - something these dumb animals are incapable of. Serious drama is between extraordinary people or an extraordinary person against world. The problem is created by an external force rather than him being a piece of shit to his friends.
And there's another type of serious drama; when your character has handicaps. Pinnocchio and Nils Holgersson. They're similar to Heathcliff's archetype, they're both amoral psychopathic assholes and opportunistic cunts like player video game characters, BUT they're against the world and the world punishes them for the bullshit try to pull off, and at the same time they persevere and win. What's the difference? They actually learn their goddamn lesson and become benevolent and morally right. Something Heathcliff doesn't because the story doesn't teach shit. The difference between 2 asshole characters like Peter Pan and Heathcliff who stubbornly never learn their lesson is that Peter Pan and the like are backed up by an interesting world design, mechanics, villains and problems. And the story never pretends that he wouldn't have been an egotistical piece of shit regardless if he fell in love or was treated badly or was born a minority. Difference is that these asshole characters are often played to be on the viewer's side, they're morally wrong antagonists but they're fighting for the "right side" which the viewer can agree with. These asshole characters could easily be written as antagonists if there wasn't a bigger villain than them.
I know exactly how low-standard the job of a teacher is, and these "classical" works are a testament to it. Redneck teachers make me sick. They should all be working at Walmart putting the groceries in the shaft. Rednecks are merciless primitives who are too stubborn to ever learn to change their ways. There's very few understanding intellectual rednecks out there.
Uhhh you know, the part where she's adopted by a loving family, makes friends, develops a crush, overreacts to silly things, and generally has one of the most romantic views on life of any character in fiction. If you read Anne of Green Gables and think it's depressing, you might be emotionally stunted.
That said, I agree that Healthcliff is a complete villain and Wuthering Heights doesn't live up to its reputation. It's disturbing how many girls see Heathcliff as an attractive anti-hero.
Jackson Diaz
>A loving family The Cuthberts that originally wanted a muscled boy to do chores around the house because Matthew could no longer due to age? Matthew who's too passive to tell off his stoic stern sister? >makes friends A bunch of rednecks who shat on her for no good reason and don't really defend her and in return she learns to be an asshole just like them? Diana who just like Matthew is too passive to really defend her and teach her good things? >develops a crush On Gilbert Blythe who made fun of her red hair and played it off as "I-i- was actually trying to compliment you"? which in the end they make for a very toxic relationship as 2 obnoxious idiots? > overreacts to silly things Silly things like her teacher being a mentally retarded anti-moralistic communist who modifies historical stories by telling them from her point of view and paints the good guy as a traitor?
If by romantic you mean most tragic, dishonestly optimistic, stockholm syndrome view on life then yeah. Anne and Pip would make an excellent couple of 2 delusional losers lying to themselves. Fucking Oliver Twist is more honest than this degeneracy.
user those children stories you read when you were little weren't very positive. What the fuck kind of life did you have that at the age of 20+ you still fall for their blatant lie? I can judge for honesty because I was either born with average standards and intelligence or because of my life conditions. How about you?
Opinion discarded. Also I know you're trolling but this is some high-grade down syndrome. If any part of you actually views the world this way I'm curious what your favorite novels are and your impressions of them, because it sounds like they'd be hilarious.
Bentley Brooks
I think this is the part where I'm suppose to come up with an insult but I just can't be arsed to. Oh wait I got one, you're a faggot redneck, enough said.
>Oh wait I got one, you're a faggot redneck, enough said.
I can't wait til you start reading Faulkner.
Hunter Bell
> Provides no argument and evidence for why he thinks it's beautiful, funny, and why the characters are charming. >I provide evidence for why the story is a depressing crap sacharrine world full of soulless materialistic rednecks >His retort is an ad hominem rather than an argument. He doesn't bother to comment on each evidence because he knows he's lost but he doesn't want to admit. Well at least you're not that far gone, normally fifth world retards take each example and trash it with inane shit like "Lol you're lying. Lol butthurt. You're a fucking idiot if you think this way". albeit the last comment was practically that said to the whole post.
Jacob Nelson
What expectations could someone have from the Green Gables fandom or any low-brow media encouraging coping mechanisms? nothing but retarded self-lying rednecks promoting their rustic caveman culture as beautiful and charming rather than the shithole full of thieves and criminals that it is.
John Thompson
My friend, there is simply no accounting for taste. If your companion sees the blue sky as black, there is no persuading him otherwise; he sees what he sees. I can think you delusional all I wish, but it's obvious the passages I would find lovely you would find noxious. I'm okay with that, it's honestly kind of funny.
Sebastian Torres
This. These low-brow books attract the worst fandoms possible.
Cameron Thompson
I'd like to think their parents would have been capable of teaching them to judge and get some taste so they're not completely lost causes.
Cooper Ortiz
It's weird how the dialogue can be so good, but the characters' actions so boring.
Angel Lopez
I will never let you rest in peace.
Sebastian Ramirez
Never ever.
Brody Cooper
>OP getting called out and mad as fuck based thread btw jane eyre and anne of green gables are radically different from WH though I will agree that the story of how love and be truly evil to yourself and to others is constantly misinterpreted
