As I was reading Wuthering Heights and got to Chapter 10, it really did seem like things were about to start picking up between Catherine Linton, formerly Catherine Earnshaw, and her adopted brother, Heathcliff, with whom she has a questionable relationship at best. Heathcliff has just returned after a three years’ education, much more intelligent and apt, and has grown a “tall, athletic, well -formed man with whom [Nelly’s] master seemed quite slender and youth-like.” He may have been in the army, and he has gone from gypsy outcast to a respectable gentlemen, at least in appearance. The relationship between Catherine and her husband Edgar has stagnated, and the stage is set for another “his soul and my soul are the same” soppy nonsense. What I was not expecting, however, was Catherine to do a 180 and trash-talk Heathcliff (to the point of being worthy of a “murdered by words” status) behind his back all because she is jealous of another whiny girl pining for the tall dark and handsome guy. Keep in mind that this is right after Catherine confides to Nelly that Heathcliff and Edgar are being “childish” by refusing to make amends (pg. 98 in the Barnes & Noble version). There is so much to dissect here, and I could never explain it as well as Catherine could, so here it is in her own words:
“‘Tell her what Heathcliff is: an unreclaimed creature, without refinement, without cultivation; an arid wilderness of furze and whinstone. I’d as soon put that little canary into the park on a winter’s day, as recommend you to bestow your heart on him! It is deplorable ignorance of his character, child, and nothing else, which makes that dream enter your head. Pray, don’t imagine that he conceals depths of benevolence and affection beneath a stern exterior! He’s not a rough diamond–a pearl-containing oyster of a rustic: he’s a fierce, pitiless, wolfish man. I never say to him, ‘Let this or that enemy alone, because it would be ungenerous or cruel to harm them;’ I say, ‘Let them be alone, because I should hate them to be wronged:’ and he’d crush you like a sparrow’s egg, Isabella, if he found you a troublesome charge. I know he couldn’t love a Linton; and yet he’d be quite capable of marrying your fortune and expectations: avarice is growing with him a besetting sin. There’s my picture: and I’m his friend–so much so, that he had thought seriously to catch you, I should, perhaps, have held my tongue, and let you fall into his trap.'”
Wuthering Heights, pg. 101-102 Barnes & Noble
It should be noted that nothing Catherine says is inherently false; a relationship between Heathcliff and anyone would be toxic (look no further than when he regretted saving an infant from being thrown off a balcony). However, I should hope most people would be at least somewhat disgusted by Catherine’s behavior. Heathcliff’s one champion, who defended him against the abuse of Hindely (the Holy Terror himself) and stuck with him through thick and thin now flings the same insults at him. Hindley called Heathcliff a dog during the incident with the colts; now, Heathcliff is not just a dog: he is “wolfish.” Hindley referred to Heathcliff as “an imp of Satan” and Catherine seems to compare Heathcliff to Satan himself. Hindley isolates Heathcliff into a different social class, and the woman who found ways around Hindley’s attacks to spend time with Heathcliff is now speaking as if he really is an outcast. At this point, it doesn’t matter if Catherine truly means this or not. If she had really loved Heathcliff, romantically or not, she would never have slandered him this gravely over a petty disagreement with her sister-in-law.
So what is the point of this rant? It seems out of place and downright random, with not a hint of forethought, and it doesn’t look like it will happen again anytime soon. It is more likely that Catherine will continue fostering that relationship with Heathcliff and will act like it never happened in the first place. In fact, this probably won’t affect the physical relationship at all, at least superficially. However, this assumes that the reader is focused on the relationship, not the underlying subtext. When one reads Wuthering Heights and sees that it is set in 19th century England, was written by a female who defied the expectations of her sex, and focuses on a complex love-square, they would probably think of it as a pioneer of feminist literature. However, this scene disproves that notion at all. Why would a feminist author portray a main female character as fickle, untrustworthy, superficial, and a tool (all traits that have been associated with women at some point or another), when feminist literature during the time would have promoted the humanity of women and their equality to men, consequently creating stronger female characters? Catherine may have fit that narrative in the beginning of the novel, but no longer.
It appears that this scene reads much more comfortably as a Marxist reading, or at least socio-economic commentary. The issue with Heathcliff isn’t his relationship, it’s the fact that his family sees him as a gypsy and a second-class citizen. It’s about the fact that he is treated like a servant in his own home and compared to animals every other sentence. It’s about the fact that everyone in the upper classes has betrayed Heathcliff at some point or another, he can’t even trust Catherine. By some miracle, we know Heathcliff eventually overcomes this disparity, takes over Wuthering Heights, and basically enslaves Hareton like Hindley enslaved Heathcliff. An impoverished and unfortunate vagabond rises up against the elite and overthrows them (where have we seen that before?). If anything, Catherine’s behavior is the evidence that social class will triumph over personal relationships, no matter how strong. Either the elite will disparage their own friends because of that difference, or the poor will see true friendship as nothing more than a tool used to take advantage of them. Isn’t his why Catherine chooses Edgar over Heathcliff, despite her “selfless” excuse?The only difference, however, between Wuthering Heights and a typical Marxist read is that Emily Bronte, at the very least, humanizes the two sides so as not to make either one totally the bad guy. Or, perhaps they are both bad guys, like one of those, “All characters are bad guys, but some are more bad guy-ish than others.” I’d set my bets on the latter.
Benjamin Mather's AP Literature Blog 
Emily Bronte sure creates a detestable cast of characters in her novel with a lot of pointed commentary on social class issues of her time. I think the reason that some critics will use the Feminist lens is due to Catherine Linton being one of the first dynamic female protagonists depicted in British Literature who exhibits a wild character arc with both ruinous and redeeming qualities–though that argument does seem to fall short if you consider Jane Austen’s works.
LikeLike
I love this post. It really delves into the cyclical nature of societal overhaul, and how the weak will always resent the strong, overthrow the strong, and then be overthrown by the weak. I think the lack of a clear protagonist is something to pay attention to, and if there is a clearly defined villain.
LikeLike
This post is so much fun to read! You have excellently developed analysis within a readable and enjoyable blog post (you had me from the first line!). I appreciated your connection of the specific slander of Heathcliff back to the novel as a whole, and your debate of whether this is positive feminist literature. Nice job!
LikeLike