Having never read it before, I expected to hate Wuthering Heights. My main aversion was that it contained Megan’s “soap opera” aspect, complex and exaggerated relations that would never occur in real, day-to-day life. Domesticity and exaggeration were originally paradoxical to me. However, I was particularly struck by the insights on people in the novel, especially that of façades. In my reading, the text seemed to be more layered than Frankenstein, possibly due to the rounded characterization of the narrators. When reading Frankenstein, Walter, whom we know virtually nothing about other than he is seeking knowledge in the Arctic, writes Victor’s story to his sister. This ‘everyman’ character’s descriptions do not shadow the characters Victor and the monster like in Bronte’s novel. There was no lens to see through, other than Victor’s, which was easily identifiable. In other words, in my reading, the narrations tended to be unbiased in terms of characterization in Frankenstein. Albeit in Wuthering Heights, Lockwood frames the story told by Nelly, but he is obviously a pretentious and vain gentleman. Additionally, Nelly’s ulterior motives, suggesting Lockwood marry young Cathy in order to save her, taint Nelly’s previous observations on the individuals. Lockwood’s constant interruptions also helped remind me that Nelly’s story had already occurred. And although I recognized their faults, Nelly and Lockwood’s characterizations still shadowed my judgment of the characters; this is the darkness that lingers in the background, which echoes the environment. We do not truly know what is happening underneath these narrations.
This element of mystery made me suffer from Manfred-itis; I wanted to know what was going on in between the lines. What really happens between Heathcliff and Catherine when Nelly leaves to go get Edgar and he eventually punches Heathcliff? Should I watch a film adaptation or two to fill in the gaps? There are only rare scenes where Catherine and Heathcliff are together discussing anything. In fact, I did not truly understand the depth of Heathcliff and Cathy’s affection or their personalities until Catherine dies. This leads me to question whether we can only understand or identify certain things, such as human emotions, with the existence of extremities. Romanticism, in general, magnifies emotions. Do we really need a monster to allow us to realize that Victor is the ‘actual monster,’ for instance?
“Do we really need a monster to allow us to realize that Victor is the ‘actual monster,’ for instance?”
ReplyDeleteI found this question particularly intriguing because it calls the “existence of extremities” into question as you point out. Often when we think of extremities, we only see them in pairs, polar opposites. However, perhaps by the physical creation of Frankenstein’s monster, readers are able to conclude that two opposing forces do not bind us; there are a multitude of ways in which to transcend these boundaries. The monster not only leads us to believe that Victor can possibly be the figurative monster, but also complicates these “extremities” as you say because he cannot be bound by them, he is wholly “other,” isolated from humanity.
What is Lockwood's function in this novel? Is he only there to (re)tell the story? Or is there something more? Does he serve as a proof for Cathy's constant haunting? I still don't know it, but I see him as a flatter character than Walton. He is on an expedition into the Arctic, but he is looking for something that does not exist: an Arctic where "snow and frost are banished; and, sailing over a calm sea, we may be wafted to a land surpassing in wonders and in beauty every region hithertho discovered on the habitable globe" (Frankenstein: p.49). His vision will never become true. He is looking for something that he CANNOT find - as Victor cannot create another human that looks like himself. Walton's intention is, after all, to achieve glory. In this he is very similar to Victor Frankenstein. So I see Walton as another example for the human longing for ('forbidden') knowledge, no matter how are the consequences.
ReplyDeleteI can't see such a connection b/w Lockwood and Heathcliff for example. Lockwood seems to be the 'nice guy' whereas Heathcliff is the Byronic Hero. There are no similarities b/w them. Therefore, I see Lockwood as the 'everyman' (although he is a bit othered, too, as he is looking for solitude) and not Walton.
Perhaps you could read Wuthering Heights as a successful revision of Bryon's "Manfred."
ReplyDelete