Literature

- Wuthering Heights is a great novel. It is not flawless, it kind of drags in its third quarter, but its greatness so outweighs its minor flaws that if you seriously dislike this book, I don’t trust your taste in books.

- Wuthering Heights is best appreciated if you read it in English. It is a book that loses some of its power in translation. I do sympathize if you were underwhelmed by it while reading a translation.

- Heathcliff, Catherine Earnshaw and Nelly Dean are great literary achievements. The rest of the characters are well-written as well.

- Having Lockwood and Nelly narrate this was one of the best decisions made by a writer. You might be frustrated by it, but trust me, this wouldn’t be as great in third person.

- This is not a cautionary tale. It doesn’t try to teach you anything.

- But neither does it romanticize abuse. It depicts it realistically.

- Aside from some stuff about gender and inheritance in the second half, this is not a “social novel”. Its point is not to critique specific societal ills of its time. It was not written for that.

- But it is still a political work. Heathcliff is inherently a politically controversial character in a way that transcends his time period.

- Heathcliff is probably not white. It is technically possible that Emily Bronte imagined someone like Colin Farrell while writing him, but this is not an excuse for casting Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff in 2026.

- Wuthering Heights is racist by our standards. It was anti-racist by Victorian standards.

- Wuthering Heights is funny and its humor was intentional.

- Wuthering Heights is a love story. Its emotional core is Catherine and Heathcliff’s love. It is messed-up and very unhealthy, definitely, but it is still about love.

- It is emotionally a love story and structurally a revenge story. The adaptations’ failure is in thinking that it must be a love story structurally too. But it is also wrong to dismiss the love story aspect in trying to overcorrect this.

- I mentioned it before, but this book has one (1) flaw that I sympathize with when people complain about it: It does lose steam and has pacing issues in the Linton Heathcliff chapters. I completely understand why the author spent so much time on it, it is essential to the symmetry of the two halves in length, but yeah we would cut a couple of chapters in the middle if we were a modern editor working on this.

It is not an outrageous flaw in the context of 19th century though.

- The book is not completely asexual, but neither is it a sexy work.

> abandoned mansions

> forbidden libraries

> cursed antique shops

> lonely graveyards

but for all that Hareton can't fit in, can't get anyone's respect, and seems constantly, angrily aware of this — he's also the one who tries hardest to be kind to Lockwood. he's the only one willing to let him in when he's locked outside; he's the only one who offers to walk him home (in a blizzard!)

but then when Heathcliff says no, he immediately falls in line. Heathcliff, the guy who seemed offended that Lockwood thought even for a moment that Hareton could be his son. that guy. Hareton's wrapped around his finger. he even snipes at Cath2 for suggesting that Lockwood's life is worth more than Heathcliff's drudge work ("not at your command,"* he tells her - foreshadowing him choosing to obey Cath2 over Heathcliff to make her a garden near the end of the book), even though he was the one who offered to walk Lockwood home. bc Heathcliff's word is law to him, and he values it over his own generous nature.

and all of that in one short chapter! people call Brontë's writing wordy or overlong, but she was a master at packing a lot into a little when she wanted to.

Happy 250th Birthday to Jane Austen (16 December 1775)

Austen + Reductress Headlines

sense and sensibility

pride and prejudice

mansfield park

emma