since you reblogged this from me, with all due respect, i disagree. not with your exact analysis, because i agree with much of what you’re saying aside from the ultimate conclusion. but, i think what i said is extremely supported by both the text and the metanarrative because of the angle of race as an institution. racism is something i think is intrinsic to understanding heathcliff’s relationship with “ownership” of another person. i also think the way heathcliff is brought into the estate and integrated with catherine and hindley is extremely important for the context of catherine and heathcliff’s entire relationship; particularly how heathcliff affects and reflects mr. earnshaw’s regard for his biological children.
first and foremost, the violence heathcliff was subjected to for his entire life was not only based in class, but it was explicitly racially motivated. even his initial kidnapping off the street was racially motivated – and he is regarded from the beginning as an “it” and met with derision and fear of filth (including from catherine) because of his skin color in addition to his class. this is to the point of heathcliff lamenting that the color of his skin and the features of his face are worth less intrinsically than edgar’s, who is described as fair haired and blue eyed multiple times. this is something he internalizes as a key barrier preventing a secure union with catherine, even with nelly’s earnest gesture of comfort. and for heathcliff, this insecurity is all but confirmed when catherine states outright that marriage to him would debase her value as a human being. he is an “other” in all ways, including racially.
which brings me to mr. earnshaw. hindley and catherine are both neglected by mr. earnshaw following heathcliff’s “adoption”, while heathcliff has his favor. hindley is quite literally sent away from the home for years for the sake of protecting heathcliff. however, all that hindley did was behave in accordance to the values of the time, where those of heathcliff’s race and status were abused with regularity. this isn’t to absolve hindley; rather, it provides important context to part of why hindley behaves the way he does. it isn’t that he is especially notoriously uniquely cruel, but it is the very institution he was raised in that his cruelty was molded from. he is a symptom of the world that they live in.
most importantly (for the context of this conversation), catherine loses her father’s affection every time she behaves in a way that goes against what a patriarchal society wishes for her. in gothic literature, the relationship daughters have with fathers is meant to display the installment of patriarchal values onto the woman while denying her agency. it is always coercive, and mr. earnshaw is certainly no exception; his last words to catherine before his death are that he cannot love her for who she is. with the genre in mind, this is to me intrinsically symbolic of catherine’s complete rejection of patriarchal values, and the ways in which she feels trapped in obligation within it even as she fails to meet expectations. however, enter heathcliff, who is someone who does not fit into the mold of aristocracy – from his background, to his race, heathcliff is different. and yet despite his differences, heathcliff had earned mr. earnshaw’s affections more than either catherine or hindley ever did.
thus, cycling back to hindley, it can be said that catherine and hindley both parallel and invert each other on the topic of heathcliff. both of them are neglected for their natures – hindley in his acceptance of aristocracy as an institution that quite literally poises him as better than most others; and catherine in her rejection of her role as meek and submissive in a system designed to degrade her. this is just as much why catherine detests hindley as his abuse towards heathcliff; it is because he is the embodiment of the patriarchal society she inherently rejects. for hindley, heathcliff is an object to control partially in retaliation of his father’s withdrawal of affection and to prove a point about his status as a wealthy white land owner. and for catherine, heathcliff is her own reflection (from her perspective, unfit from aristocratic life) only with the affection she craved from her father – and thus is for her to control, as well. i believe mr. earnshaw is a very pointed commentary on the world the two were raised into, and heathcliff’s existence in this dynamic is meant to be a black mirror.
further, it’s no coincidence that it is typically women and those of lower class who elevate heathcliff’s status in some way. nelly suggests he might be a lost prince because of his race. isabella falls in love with him as if he were a tragic hero in a novel. catherine sees him as a reflection of her soul. hareton loves him as a rebellious savior from his abusive father. meanwhile, edgar and hindley both view heathcliff as a threat in spite of his status as being beneath them. and mr. earnshaw, while affectionate with heathcliff, still views heathcliff as essentially found property to dote on.
then of course, we get to the animal symbolism. particularly heathcliff’s hounds – violent, not fit to be pets. he warns lockwood not to regard them as anything less than threats to his safety, that they are not the typical dogs he would see in a family home. heathcliff is also frequently compared to horses – once wild and free, but now work animals that toil until their bodies break.
with all of this in mind, catherine’s wish to own heathcliff is extremely loaded, and rooted in selfishness the same as both hindley and mr. earnshaw.
i can understand an argument that would suggest the topic of race in wuthering heights is more to do with, possibly, brontë’s own personal racism, but with how those who are violent towards heathcliff on the basis of race are construed as inherently cruel, i think that my textual analysis is apt. especially when factoring in how hindley saw fit to quite literally whip heathcliff, force him into manual labor, deny him education, restrict his food, and all while calling him slurs and racially motivated insults. also considering the fact that heathcliff’s “adoption” happens when slavery was still legal in england, and how the novel was published only just 13 years after slavery was abolished in england (an extremely controversial decision), there was very little chance that the conversation of race and slavery were not on brontë’s mind when establishing heathcliff as a POC.
catherine is prone to her own violence and cruelty. the same sister-in-law catherine arguably sought to protect from heathcliff is the one whose arm catherine clawed to the point of bleeding when she learned of her affections. catherine is physically and verbally abusive towards servants and towards her own husband. each one of those people are those she either all but literally owns (servants) or seeks to control (her husband and his family). why is it such a stretch to suggest that her relationship with heathcliff is similarly complicated? especially when one of the emotional peaks of the book is heathcliff explaining the depths of which he both hates and loves her, and calls her death a petty suicide. and doubly so when heathcliff’s own death comes from catherine taking his soul (consensually, but with everything above? still a layer of complexity).
this isn’t to say that what heathcliff and catherine have isn’t “real” and doesn’t, in some ways, both literal and metaphorical, transcend the barriers between them. but imo, to say that their love isn’t influenced at all by the world around them is to dismiss quite a bit of text, staples of gothic lit as a genre, and real-world context. with the power imbalance between them structurally, their mutual codependency leading to both of their deaths is a commentary of how, specifically, the society they live in is untenable to their happiness – and every abhorrent action the two of them do is a reflection of the consequences of the interference of their connection.
i believe that wuthering heights is about a great many things, and ownership of others on a societal level is one of them.
and i do want to say for the record that nothing of what i said here is the classic “novel about awful people ruining the lives of everyone around them” take. i think that people in terrible, sympathetic situations do awful things. nelly’s relationship with hindley hinges on this very idea – they were childhood friends, and while she doesn’t approve of his abuse of heathcliff and his future abuse of his son, he still means a great deal to her. even when she gets her life threatened by him, she laments his state for not just the sake of hareton, but for himself. in many ways, this is an intentional parallel to the relationship the reader has with heathcliff. we pity and root for him, we think he is right to hate his abusers. but as heathcliff’s cruelty develops and grows more sinister, it becomes complicated. all of what i stated is exactly this: catherine and heathcliff’s relationship is complicated. for reasons related to class, gender, and race, as well as the cycle of neglect and abuse that existed before heathcliff even came into the picture, ingrained into the system that sought to suffocate them.
my take on catherine is extremely sympathetic. even with all of what i said up here, i fundamentally believe the “main antagonist” of wuthering heights is white supremacist patriarchy. if catherine and heathcliff were not in the situation they were in, with the societal trappings around them, they would not have suffered the way they did. but simultaneously, perhaps their union would not have meant as much to either of them without it. this is what i love about the genre!
(and i am only primarily focusing on catherine here because the tags related to her are the ones you’re specifically responding to; this is already long, but i could easily talk about heathcliff’s role in wanting to own catherine and how he uses other women and patriarchal power just as much)
