Lockwood is (Mostly) Useless

Let me be more specific. Lockwood being Lockwood adds absolutely nothing to the “meat” of the story. So far he is abrasive, awkward, and he doesn’t cause any character development or even has some of his own. The archetype that he serves (the outsider) and the frame narrative structure, on the other hand, is crucial–it accomplishes two things at the same time. 1). It gives us a conclusion at the beginning, and 2). It reminds us that at the end of the day and in the grand scheme of things, characters are still absolute.

In most, if not all stories, the conclusion comes at the end. The introduction of the outsider at the beginning of the novel but set a year after the events of the main story take place gives the audience a sense of closure and distance even while they are reading through that main story. They know that the story of Heathcliff comes to an end and they know that it ends with a promising young boy living a life of misery and hatred and causing unspeakable devastation to those around him. It also allows the reader to make more connections their first time through the novel than they would have the second time. For instance, Lockwood gives this description of Wuthering Heights in the first chapter:

“Wuthering Heights is the name of Mr. Heathcliff’s dwelling. ‘Wuthering’ being a significant provincial adjective, descriptive of the atmospheric tumult to which its station is exposed in stormy weather. Pure, bracing ventilation they must have up there at all times, indeed: one may guess the power the north wind blowing over the edge, by the excessive slant of a few stunted firs at the end of the house; and by a range of gaunt thorns all stretching their limbs one way, as if craving alms of the sun”

Wuthering Heights pg. 4

This passage offers the reader two insights: that the description of Wuthering Heights in the present resembles Heathcliff, particularly his stormy disposition and calculated unpredictability. Wuthering Heights is a very different place when Nelly starts her story, and it is almost as if Bronte is not-so-subtly coaxing the reader into making the connection between Wuthering Heights and Heathcliff right off the bat, instead of waiting for the reader to make that connection, which would have happened if the novel started in 1771. Secondly, subverts the reader’s expectations and causes them to question Heathcliff throughout the novel. If the novel starts in 1771, when Heathcliff is first introduced, the reader doesn’t know what his fate is and therefore cannot make connections and see the details Bronte wants the reader to see. When Heathcliff goes from a peasant to a nobleman, the reader would it interesting at most but see it as another lot element. However, the novel is structured differently. Heathcliff is introduced as a nobleman, so the reader will expect that he grew up so when Nelly starts her story. When his circumstances are quite the opposite, the reader is left questioning how such a poor, socially deprived servant could come to control the Lintons, the Earnshaws, and both Wuthering Heights and Thruschcross Grange. The story inadvertently shifts to Heathcliff as the main character (even though it’s supposed to be Cathy’s origin) because the reader dwells so much on these questions. In doing so, the reader can pick up on the details that Bronte wants them to pick up on, such as the comparison between Heathcliff and Satan or the similarities between Heathcliff, Hindley, and Hareton.

Lockwood being an outsider does a second crucial thing: it keeps the reader focused on the fact that characters remain absolute. Heathcliff, while being a protagonist, is very clearly a villain. He ruins every relationship that he is in, he ruins people, and his mind dwells on revenge and hatred. However, we are given enough time with him to pity him, as the reader probably did during Catherine Earnshaw/Linton’s death. When we are given enough time in the mind of a bad guy, it can be easy to start thinking of him as a good guy. When Lockwood starts and periodically interrupts the novel, it jolts the reader back to reality and the realization that no matter how much we might have felt sorry for Heathcliff, he is still rotten. When Lockwood arrived as an outsider, he didn’t know any of that story, so he saw Heathcliff for what he became, not what led up to that: what he became was a despicable despot, and by starting us off with that, Bronte leaves that lingering thought with the reader so that we don’t ever get too emotionally invested in Heathcliff: SO THAT WE TREAT HIM LIKE HINDLEY TREATED HIM. Bronte invites us to participate in the story by letting us contribute for ourselves the things that make Heathcliff so dark, and we’re not supposed to feel terrible about it, just like how Hindley didn’t feel terrible about mistreating Heathcliff. Sure, we pitied him when he lived through that injustice, but we find ourselves turned against him in the end.

I really hope that this made sense, as I didn’t know I would arrive at this conclusion when I started writing. I followed my line of reasoning until I ended up freaking myself out by the things I was writing, so I apologize if that felt a tad bit like a rant, since it basically was. Still, it blows my mind how Bronte might have broken the fourth wall and we didn’t even know it.