Saturday, August 22, 2009
Welcome to AP English!
I would like to introduce blogging as a new activity to AP English this year. Since most of you are already web savvy, much more than I, to be sure, I thought that this medium would be most likely to promote free exchange of ideas about the literature we will be studying this year. This will also give all of you an outlet for free-writing your ideas, a view to how others react to them (your ideas), and the opportunity to hone and sharpen your expression for the final essays you write for this class. This will also put me on the blogspot as well since I will be directing, encouraging, and responding to your comments with my own. Finally, since I will be out of school the last two weeks of September, this blog will give us the platform to continue our literary discussions of the works you are reading during this time. If you have any ideas for bells and whistles to add to this blog (and know how to do them), please let me know. Let the blogging commence!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just a reminder to add your thoughts about language as it is handled thematically in either 1984 or Handmaid's Tale. All ideas welcome!
ReplyDeleteLanguage in 1984: The most interesting and obvious reference the language in 1984 was Newspeak. Newspeak pretty much disgusted me becuase I couldn't fathom the destruction of words. In the real world, people take language classes and vocabulary quizzes, and new words are added into the dictionary every year. Since language gives you the freedom to express, opening your mind. Newspeak was perfect in the sense that it would eventually destroy all language in opposition to the government. Lack of language is very limiting; in a foreign country it's hard to say what you want, so I can't imagine not being able to even think what you want because you don't know the words.
ReplyDeleteNewspeak in 1984 represents how central language is to a human's individuality. By deleting words from the language that would present opposition to the Party, it allows the Party to futher control the minds of its citizens. Also, tying in the theme of controlling the past, people would forget about the scrapped words and would be even more susceptible to the Party's teachings.
ReplyDeleteLanguage in 1984 is a huge part of the control that the party has over residents of Oceania. If newspeak was not existed, there would be a lot more people like Winston who would rebel because they would know how to articulate the thoughts of betrayal they could be feeling in words. A resident of Oceania could be feeling that the government was being unjust but considering they dont know words to describe how they are feeling they would most likely just shrug off the feelings and deal with it.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree. I think that the Party overestimates its power with the control of language. Andrea, although it is hard to express yourself in a foreign country, you still think what you think and feel what you feel. What the Party does not realize is that they can do nothing to suppress feeling. They may take away the words, "love," "fear," "anger," or "freedom," but they can't stop people from feeling these things. If you can't physically tell someone you love them, you don't love them any less. If you know that the government is unfair but don't have the words to protest, you still know. Maybe more ignorant people would give up on these emotions, but there will always be people like Winston who have enough common sense not to give in to something they know is wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Courtney. An emotion is a feeling. It is not merely defined by words because emotions go beyond verbal expression; an emotion is not eliminated simply by removing a word.
ReplyDeleteUp until the end of the book, it seemed that one of the major themes was that the government can control nearly every aspect of your life, but as long as you kept you ideas concealed, they had no way of knowing your thoughts. Therefore, the only freedom that Winston could be assured of was through his thoughts. The danger in rebellious thought laid not in the thought itself, necessarily, but rather in the actions that one took, whether they be consciously or subconsciously.
I would like to discuss language in The Handmaid's Tale. The biggest thing i realized in Handmaid's Tale was the religious reference to the language. The whole society is based on biblical terms and references, this including the titles of social classes, the shops, and there is even a subtle reference to the cars the people drive. The name change of the handmaids is a perfect example of how the government takes away their individuality. The new vocabulary of the Republic of Gilead contaminates the language. It is there way of maintaining control and power.
ReplyDeleteI think the language in the handmaids tale played a much larger role in the novel than 1984. In the handmaids tale religious terms are given to men such as " angels", " Guardians of the faith", and " the eyes of God". These religious icons further express the government's fascination in religion, and how they base their entire society around the Old Testament. The women are also deprived of all reading material, signs, or word in general. This is because they fear women will become too intelligent and perhaps start to rebel. The men objectify the women and subject them to a life of service and submission to men.
ReplyDeleteThe language in the Handmaid's Tale played a huge role in the power that the government had over the people. By relating everything to God and the Bible, it was a lot easier to convince people that what they were doing was holy and right. Though obviously not everyone was fooled, a lot were convinced that the rules and laws were the only way to be right by God and were therefore necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think it was kind of a conspiracy on behalf of the Gileadean government to destroy all books and magazines, (including Bibles I'm assuming...) and then quote phrases from the bible that have been totally misunderstood and shaped to benefit Gilead. On that note, I think the misinterpretation of language in A Handmaid's Tale is a major topic. When Offred was talking to the second Ofglen, she realized that answering a simple question with the word "Yes" instead of "Praise be" could give away her hostile feelings about the Republic, or could just pass as a minor slip-up. =]
ReplyDeleteIn 1984 the government used Newspeak as a way to slowly ensure that members of society could not takeover the Party and Big Brother. By taking away the ability to express themselves in words people would be more willing to follow the ideas of the government. This did the opposite effect on Winston, making him consider the Brotherhood and resent Big Brother.
ReplyDeleteThe government in 1984 uses language to control the thoughts of the people. Newspeak is designed to contain no words that can say negative things about the Party. Newspeak becomes the language of thought for each person, and so they think thoughts that are approved by the Party at all times
ReplyDeleteI agree with zoe when she said that when the members of the party were taken away the ability to express themselves in words, they were more willing to foloow Oceania's government. When an individual is not given the right of freedom of speech or allowed to state their opinions, they loose all sense of individuality and freedom; which is exactly what the Party's governet wanted. The language in 1984 wa also altered by the telescreens and "short-hand" script Winston had to translate and learn to write in order to maintain his job.
ReplyDeleteSara Schneider
I find Courtney and Breanna's comments interesting about how language and feeling are connected. I agree that if the Party was able to take away the word "love" there could still be feelings of love in the generation in which the switch was made. However, the way Newspeak is set up is meant to be gradual. Newspeak is designed to gradually destroy all "unnecessary" words and connotations connected to them until people have feelings without being able to express them and then eventually not have feelings at all. If there isn't a word or any possible way to express a feeling, the feeling doesn't exist inside a person. By changing people's outside influences, they can change people on the inside just like O'brien made Winston see 5 fingers.
ReplyDeleteIn Handmaid's Tale, the language was a really big factor because as it said in the "Historical Notes" at the end of the book, the whole story is from Offred's point of view as recorded on a tape. That means that she had to choose her words carefully and the language was hers, not the heavily edited versions most stories are told in. The fact that she still had all these words at her disposal, and the capacity to make all of the allusions and symbols that she does throughout the book, means that just because the Gilead government took away reading and learning as a part of women's lives, the women are not made less intelligent and capable. The language that Handmaids are supposed to use is very limited, in both greetings and responses, so none have an effective way of communicating, which can take away the real threat of rebellion.
ReplyDeleteIn The Handmaid's Tale, the handmaids are required to ask specific questions and provide specific responses whenever they meet each other on the street. These responses are all religiously based and create a holy, pius image. This image is ironic though because we all know that the handmaids are not holy or else they would have chosen the Colonies to be forced to live solely to try to have a man's baby. Also, the men are given religious based names (Angel, Guardians of the Faith, etc...)even though a government so degrading and repressive toward women is not one based on any kind of faith or morals. All of this shows that language is very important because it creates an image which many people would find good and proper.
ReplyDeleteIn The Handmaid's Tale, gender roles are extrememly evident. The women are all divided into professions based on a part of a "woman's job" such as wives, handmaids, and marthas. I believe that these jobs all stemmed from pre-Gilead days when women had to do all of those jobs, so Gilead broke them down into different professions trying to help them. What the leaders of Gilead did not realize was that categorizing women like that removes their individuality.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to what Nick said, the women's individuality was further removed by being forced to wear different colored clothes based on their job. Wearing the different colors not only takes away a person's individuality, but it also tells all of the other members of the society what that person's role in the society is. This could possibly cause discrimination and dissent among the groups of the society.
ReplyDeleteLanguage is an extremely important part of 1984. Sice everyone is talking about "Newspeak," i'll do that as well. Newspeak is designed to take "unecessary" words (as Connor said) or words that didn't comply with teh Party. The Party's goal was complete and total power. By using Newspeak, they could recreate history to make them the supreme power in the eyes of the people. Coutrney said you don't need words to feel emotions, but I disagree to some extent. If the word "love" was annihilated, and took out of existence, I believe you may feel but how could you react? For example, how do you decribe colors? By their name. Red looks like red. Green looks green. If "love" just became "doubleplusgood" or something along those lines, then I believe it would be a totally different feeling than what we feel it as today. Which is the ultimate goal of the Party, to control the world they want it. Just my thoughts anyway.
ReplyDeletePhew! Between my brother and I we finally fixed whatever was wrong with this "script error" I was getting when trying to write. Looks like I'll have to come up with a fancier screen name. Which I think is ironic since this discussion is on language. Just looking at the various ways that everybody chose to identify themselves shows just how important language is to a society. I think that in The Handmaid's Tale, the language plays a more important role. Our freedom of speech is something that we often take for granted. Like fanatic said (sorry im not sure who you are) the words and phrases the Handmaid's say are forced on them, they have no choice but to say them. This forced language becomes habit, and this leads to the total accepting of it. Borrowing from what the "Prettiest Girl" said about 1984, these forced greetings and such tend to eliminate and feelings of intimacy, or even friendship for that matter.
ReplyDeleteThe American dream is the dream that people of every class of society feel that they can achieve a better, richer, and happier life in the U.S. Also, the origin of the American dream comes from the Declaration of Independence, which states that "all men are created equal," and everyone is entitled to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." In the Great Gatsby, Nick epitomizes the American dream. Nick is not poor but he is not filthy rich like Gatsby. Nick strives to live the dream and pursue happiness, whether it is through Jordan, Daisy, or Gatsby.Gatsby tries to pursure the Dream because at one point he was poor and his only dream was to become rich to win over Daisy's heart. But now, since Gatsby has enough wealth, Daisy is the only "thing" he feels will complete his life and his dream. Daisy is his American Dream. Even though Gatsby knows Daisy is married to Tom and Tom will never let her go easily, he is determined and fights for his only dream left to fulfill until his death.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara's definition of the American Dream, but I don't believe that Nick is the epitome of the American Dream. I believe Fitzgerlad wrote "The Great Gatsby" to demonstrate that the American Dream IS happiness, and that money and a good lifestyle are just pathways to that happiness. Fitzgerald made Nick be an outsider looking in at those who supposedly achieved the American Dream. As an example, Gatsby's neverending pursuit of Daisy shows how just being rich does not allow one to accomplish the American Dream. Although Gatsby had all the money one could ever want, he was unhappy because Daisy was not his. Gatsby never achieved his dream, thus he didn't achieve the American Dream.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Sara's definition of the American Dream, I always think of it as something more specific than that. When I think of the American Dream I picture being married, with two kids (one boy, one girl) and living in a little house with a porch, a white picket fence, and a dog. With this image, the only people in "The Great Gatsby" who try to fulfill my vision of the American Dream are Daisy and Tom. They are married and they are trying to be happy, but they don't have love. As Katie said, being rich and having extragent things do not make you happy, they are merely pathways to happiness. Tom and Daisy, by getting married and having Pammy, try to follow the standard set forth about what the American Dream is, but there was nothing behind the actions to make the pursuit of the American Dream worth it.
ReplyDeleteErin
I don't think I quite agree with what anyone has said. I think there are a lot of definitions for the American Dream, but its most general definition is success. Sara and Katie defined that success as wealth or love, while Erin described it as conformity. In The Great Gatsby, everyone has different goals in which they want to be successful. Tom wants to live his double life, Myrtle wants her fancy image, Daisy wants to keep what she has, and Gatsby wants Daisy. Nick wants to be successful in business and in his social life, as shown in his relationship with Jordan. Everyone is grasping upward in order to have more things or more people. To me, Daisy seems to be the exception to the theme of the American Dream. She's kind of lethargic. She doesn't do anything about Tom's affair and she doesn't decide anything about Tom versus Gatsby. Since she's not stiving for anything, she doesn't have the American Dream.
ReplyDeleteI agree partly with Andrea when she says the definition for the American Dream is success, though I think its more related to wealth and the opportunities that come after it. However, I disagree when she says Daisy is an exception to the American Dream. I believe Daisy tried her best to be successful just by marrying Tom, and was even willing to give up the possibility of Gatsby for the opportunity to be married to such a wealthy and successful man. To me, Nick seems the least motivated to do anything. He seems too caught up in the world around him to actually put his whole heart into being successful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erin's comment about the "American Dream" relating to a happily married couple with two kids and a white picket fence, but I think money is a major focus. The characters within Great Gatsby were incredibly gaudy and very into status and success. Andrea did mention that not everyone agrees on what success really means and I think that is why the characters in this book are so different. Everyone has their own "American Dream" and they feel whatever success means to them is how to fulfill it. No one in Great Gatsby fully encompassed the "American Dream".
ReplyDeleteZoe
I also agree with zoe and erin, because the American dream is a worldwide ideal of life. When the people of great gatesby acquire the american dream, yet happiness still alludes them, this shatters the illusion of a perfesvt life. None of the characters could obtain this dream, and some really didnt want to.
ReplyDeleteI think the american dream is different for every person. There's a general idea of what the american dream is, but there is not exact definition. In The Great Gatsby, the readers kind of see the corruption of the american dream, which is seen between the comparisons of west egg and east egg. The american dream is supposed to be about success, but with the characters in the great gatsby (specifically tom vs. gatsby), you see a comparison of money and popularity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chrissy -- I don't think you can define the American Dream. It is different for every single person. The best way to get a handle on it would be to say to each person, "In x amount of years you will be truly content, how do you see yourself?" Also, I wanted to comment on Andrea's analyzation of the characters and their desires. First of all, this book has one of the most obnoxious cast of characters I've run into. None of the characters are likeable, and they are all so concerned with obtaining their idea of "the American Dream" that they don't care about scamming, cheating, or even killing other people.
ReplyDeleteWhen anyone talks about the American Dream, I believe they are referring to the generalized thought of the American Dream by the middle class in the 1940s and 1950s. Gatsby hopes to live out the American Dream Daisy, but it seems to always elude him. One explanation for this could be that Gatsby is so rich that he is incapable of experiencing the middle class American Dream.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick in that I think the American Dream is a more generalized thought for the Middle Class. When people talk about the American Dream they talk about being able to come to America and start over, to achieve success they would have never otherwise had. Every person has different aspirations, but they all share a united "American Dream."
ReplyDelete- Jordan
Like Jordan said, during the Roaring 20s, America was a symbolf of a new, successful life. The streets were "paved with gold" and there were endless oppurtunities to become as successful as you are willing to work. While it appears that the Buchanans were living the American Dream, I believe that they are not. Neither Tom nor Daisy had to work for their money, and because of this, it gives them a false sense of hapiness. In my eyes, Nick is the only one truly living the American Dream in the way it was intended to be lived.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the American Dream is having a nice house, making good money, kids, and a family. i would guess that this is the "Dream" shared by most people in America. By these standards, no one in Gastby has achieved the American Dream. While yes, all of the characters have the nice houses and the money, but are they truly happy? The essential aspect living the American Dream is being happy, which few of the characters come close to gaining. So I would have to disagree with Jordan and Smitty, because the book ends with Nick breaking up with Jordan. Nick is also low on money, and really is just out partying it up. So its very hard for me to say that any of the characters have obtained the American Dream, at least in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with everyone who believes that the American dream is defined indivivdually because I think it is based upon the general concesus of society's values. Therefore, the time and setting of the story are key details when trying to pin point the American dream. Unlike Nick, and a few others, I don't think that having a perfect family would have been included in the dream until about the 1950s when there was a stronger emphasis on family-life. This time period, however, focuses more on popularity, wealth, pleasure, and partying. The American dream, then, would be making something out of nothing in order to gain wealth and increase social status. The most obvious character living this definition of the American dream is Gatsby.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the question is whether the characters in the book have achieved the American Dream or not, but whether the American Dream is even worthwhile. They are all wealthy and "successful" but the one thing none of them can get back is time. I wouldn't consider anyone successful if they wanted to go back and change it all. I think that the valley of ashes represents America and the American Dream, consumed by the fires of war with an advertisement (T.J. Eckleburg) as their god and stuck in the present. The point is that the American Dream itself was destroyed by World War I leaving nothing to look forward to. The only thing that resembles the wonder of the pre-WWI era is the green light at the end of the dock.
ReplyDeleteCareful you don't get stalled with generalizations. Connor's comments are most focused on the novel itself. Consider the important images and settings and what they mean. And examine the character of Gatsby himself. Why is he great? Or is he? And to whom? Is Courtney right, that none of these characters are appealing--so why bother with them? Or is Fitzgerald trying to say something about America and its values through the depiction of these characters? Think about the book's motif of dreams and Fitzgerald's allusions to American icons: cars, explorers, the promise of the West, adventure, the rags to riches story. Is he affirming the myth or exploding it? Or both? Don't guess. Look at the text, and cite it in your papers. Mrs. Knox
ReplyDelete(WOW, my post DIND'T show up.. will I lose points?)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breanna, especially because during they are living in the roaring twenties. During this time there really isn't a big emphasis on family, and more about being rich and popular. So she's right, society dictates the American Dream and Gatsby is the epitome of capturing it. However, for Gatsby, he did not obtain the American Dream for the sake of the American Dream (Like I would think most would do), he acquired his wealth and popularity for the sole purpose of winning Daisy's love. Evident in the story, love to many characters, like Tom, really doesn't mean much and the American Dream is what's really important, but for Gatsby, it's the opposite. So, even though he acquires the American Dream for a person in this time period, I don't think you can say he had the motivation or reasons for acquiring it. Isn't that a necessary part of the dream itself?
I do understand everyone's points of view on "The American Dream" and how one could interpret The Great Gatsby as the story of several peoples' struggles to attain it, but I think overall, Fitzgerald was trying to show that there actually is no such thing as the American Dream. Nick is happy, morally whole, and he has good friends, but he can't afford anything more than a cardboard shack to live in. Gatsby is wealthy, lives in a massive house, and is a man of stature and class, but he has nobody to share his good fortune with. When he finally starts having people he cares about come into his life, he gets murdered. Tom and Daisy Buchanan are wealthy, successful, well known people with a daughter and a beautiful house and good friends, but they lack love. Tom has various affairs, and Daisy loathes him for it. So overall, I believe the moral of The Great Gatsby is that The American Dream is something that can only be had when one has an absolutely perfect life--something that is not possible to have.
ReplyDeleteNice final comment, Evan, on Gatsby and the dream. You should be into reading Wuthering Heights now, and I know Lockwood is one pompous twit of a narrator. But hold on--he is replaced by a much more accessible story-teller, Nelly the housekeeper. For Blog this week, comment on the differences between these two narrators. Consider reliability, objectivity, knowledge of the setting and characters, as well as attitude and predispositions.
ReplyDeleteFOR VOCABULARY: Do Unit 2 for this week. I will ask you to do a quiz paragraph using words from this unit on Friday. You must memorize the words as you will have no word bank. Mr. Dolinar will give you a discussion question based on Wuthering Heights and you will have to write your answer, using a specified number of words from Unit 2. If you can get into the lab you can word process answer and email to me as you did your tests on GG. Happy reading. Mrs. Knox
(EXTRA CREDIT: 5 points to the first five emailers who can explain the literary allusions in my granddaughter's name: Lysistrata Jennet)
Lockwood's narration to me, dealing with relability, is really hard to follow or believe at times becuase throughout the novel he digresses and makes unecessary judgements or accusations about the other characters or Wuthering Heights in general.Even though Lockwood holds good intentions, the difference between him and Nelly's narration is great because Nelly shows a great amount of knowledge of the setting. Lockwood goes into Wuthering Heights not really knowing anything or anyone involvd with the place and its story and therefore his narration was unclear at times. On the other hand, Nelly grew up with the Catherine and Heathcliff when they were just children and kows eveythingabout the family and where everyone came from. Her reliable narration offers us a clear understanding of the story behind Wuthering Heights instead of Lockwood's lack of knowledge and reliability. Nelly's narration also helps us understand the events that happen to Lockwood more clearly, especially his ghostly encounter durng the night. In conclusion, Nelly is a refreshing change of pace copared to Lockwood's narration.
ReplyDeleteI agree with sara in that it is very difficult to follow Lockwood's narration. It is almost as if he is telling the story to himself. The reader does not get the details that should come out of the story, and he gives more of a biased opinion rather than an account of what is happening.He is actually rather oblivious to what is going on in Wuthering Heights. Nelly's narration is completely different that Lockwood's. She actually tells the story, not judging the characters or stating opinions, but telling what happened. She was a spectator throughtout this story that was present at the time, and therefore her side of the story is more credible.
ReplyDeleteI actually didn't mind Lockwood's narration much at all. I also believe that so far, most of his judgements are pretty close to the truth. To him, Heathcliffe comes across rude and unwelcoming, and judging by the terrible childhood and past that Nelly told about, that's pretty much who he is to people he doesn't know. Lockwood just didn't know anything about his past, and was a little bit too concerned with his own problems to be a very good narrator. I didn't find him difficult to follow though. However, I do believe Nelly was the better narrator because she knew details about the past and was able to comment on it without bias.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara and Chrissy that Lockwood is a slightly less reliable narrator than Nelly, simply because Lockwood rambles while Nelly tells a story. Nelly is, as stated before, obviously more objective than Lockwood because she tells most of her story as if it were a third person narrative. Nelly also has more knowledge of setting and characters than Lockwood becuase he is new to the region. Their attitudes/predispositions are entirely different; Lockwood is pretty self-absorbed while Nelly seems to tell all sides of her tale. Consequently, I think that Nelly is the better narrator, but Lockwood is handy to have around because his comments accentuated how dirty and rough Heathcliff is.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Sara and Chrissy; I don't think Lockwood's narration was difficult to follow. I think he is a boring, obnoxious character who is obviously not concerned with overstaying his welcome, but he told the story clearly. I thought it was a boring, yet interesting way for Bronte to start, almost giving you an outside glimpse before going in depth. Obviously, Nelly is the better narrator as far as the past and the emotions of the family, because she experienced it all. She is almost able to justify the actions of the characters who were initially judged by Lockwood. I think the reason we don't like Lockwood is because he basically starts in the middle or the end of the story, instead of at the beginning, where we would prefer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara, Chrissy and Andrea that Lockwood's narration is hard to follow. He seems to tell something one way, then always change his mind. He is truthful about how he feels other characters interact with him, but I think sometimes he is completely bias and half-heartingly explaining it. The comment has been made that Lockwood does not really tell a story, it is just kinda mixed up thoughts. Nelly is much more reliable and and does not come off as bias. She can explain the family setting better and tells a story, rather than random mixed emotions and thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara in her comment about the reliability of the two narrators. Lockwood does enter Wuthering Heights without any knowledge of the inhabitants or of the history of the settlement. His lack of any kind of knowledge prior to his visit in chapter 1 deems him an unreliable source from which to draw ideas and conclusions. Although he gets across the basic moods and characteristics of Heathcliff and the other inhabitants of Wuthering Heights, that is about all I could draw out of his narration. Nelly, on the other hand, is rather reliable in her narration of the novel. Unlike Lockwood, Nelly knows the history behind Wuthering Heights and the past and current characters living under its roof. However, she is still subject to make mistakes, though not as large as Lockwood's tendency. In my opinion, Nelly offers a greater and more detailed narration of the novel than that of Lockwood.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara's opinion on Lockwood being difficult to follow, but I don't really agree with the two narrators' reliability. I believe that Nelly is fallible in her own way by already having her own judgements of Heathcliff, Catherine, and all the others. Her postive attribute is that she has first-person knowledge of what happened, and I would say it's safe to say that her memories of the important facts are correct. Nelly's deluding device, however, is her own opinions. Since she's recalling memories that have happened as far back as 20 years, her own judgements on the characters may have clouded her original memories. This seems to be apparent in Nelly's attitude towards Catherine. Lockwood, although he is pompous and makes a lot of mistakes, is pretty much a clean slate because he knew nothing of Wuthering Heights beforehand. In a nutshell, both narrators are at a certain degree of fallibility and the reader should keep that in mind.
ReplyDeleteWhat Katie said about the reliability of the characters is intriguing to say the least. Nelly has already made her own judgments which undoubtedly come through in the way she describes the characters, but at the same time, she was there when the story actually happened, as previously stated by several other people. She is sure of what happened because she saw it for herself. Lockwood is just another "reader" so to speak because he is learning everything just as we the readers are. True "Wuthering Heights" is written as if it is Lockwood's diary so he is really telling the readers what happened, but once Nelly becomes the narrator it feels as if you are being told a story by someone who really understands the significance of every event and every situation where as Lockwood was always uncertain of what was going on. Also, as a side note, I like the way Nelly tells the story better than Lockwood's because she seems like she wants to tell the story, especially since she started right in on it as soon as she had retrieved her sewing without needing a second invite. The way Lockwood talks it feels like he thinks he is obliged to tell the story although he doesn't want to.
ReplyDeleteErin
I found that Lockwood's account was very hard to follow. Lockwood just acts and talks so snobish that it becomes overbearing. At times it seems that Lockwood does not even want to tell the story, but feels forced to put it down in his diary. This does not mean that Lockwood is not reliable, but he may let his own generalizations and opinions slightly alter what he puts down. Nelly tells the story like a person who has a genuine interest in what is going on. This carries over and makes the story much more enjoyable. It also makes the Nelly appear as a "more" reliable narrator. I believe that Nelly and Lockwood are both reliable, that no one tells more truth than the other. That being said, Nelly is by far the better narrator.
ReplyDeleteI found Nelly to be a much more interesting, and much more compassionate narrator than Lockwood. She holds very strong feelings toward the other characters, and this makes her judgements and input all the more interesting. Lockwood seems very negatively biased towards the other characters, and this causes him to make harsh rationalities and judgements.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jeremy in that Nelly is the better narrator. Lockwood tells the story hows he sees it happening, as it happens. Nelly is telling a story from the past, allowing for more clarity and detail.
ReplyDelete-Nick G.
I agree with Emily that Lockwood provides an interesting perspective as an outsider, but is an overall unreliable and reluctant narrator. Nelly is a much better narrator because her thoughts are more organized and she tells a much clearer story.
ReplyDeleteAs just about everyone has previously said, Lockwood's lack of attitude when telling the story causes us to find him an unreliable narrator. I find interesting, however, what Katie said about Nelly also being unreliable, though it seems the opposite. Nelly, who grew up with Heathcliff and Catherine, tells a somewhat biased story because of the time spent with the Lintons. While Nelly's account is based on a long, rather close relationship, Lockwood's is based solely on his first impressions of the members of Wuthering Heights. There are both advantages and disadvantages in both cases.
ReplyDelete-Matt
The problem with Lockwood as a narrator is that he is thrust into the middle of all of these strong personalities. Bronte creates an overall feeling of confusion because that's how Lockwood is experiencing the events of the first few chapters. The book needs Nelly to apprise (haha) the reader of simple exposition because up until Nelly takes over as narrator there isn't an organized plot to the book.
ReplyDeleteBoth Katie and Matt identify an important point about first person narration. Lockwood and Nelly both have biases and preoccupations that color their perceptions. Especially in Nelly's treatment of Catherine, her disapproval of strong passions and egocentric behavior alters her actions where Catherine is concerned, perhaps even precipitating some of the crucial events in the story, such as Heathcliff's abrupt departure when Nelly fails to alert Catherine to his eavesdropping on their discussion of Edgar Linton. On the other hand, Nelly's concientious attention to detail enables us to see this bias even as she reports it (i.e. Edgar's castigation of Nelly for not telling him of his wife's illness). As you continue reading to the end of the story, consider another element that affects Nelly as narrator and all the characters as well: class. How do characters' assumptions about class affect their relationships with others? Is that effect detrimental or fortuitous? Write something on this for next Saturday.
ReplyDeleteCharacters' assumptions of class greatly affect their relationships with one another in Wuthering Heights, for example, when Lockwood first meets Heathcliff he is surprised by the way Heathcliff acts. He expected a somewhat different manner from Heathcliff sheerly because of his wealth, and his actual personality therefore surprises Lockwood. Another example is when Catherine first meets Hareton after riding further than she was supposed too one afternoon, their encounter is going fine at first. However, once Nelly makes mention of leaving, Catherine assumes Hareton is a servant because of her class and his appearence and commands him to get her pony. Hareton becomes angry, rightfully so, and curses at Catherine, meanwhile, she has no idea what she did wrong. In this respect, the assumptions of class can in fact be very detrimental.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most interesting class position in the book is Nelly's. Even though she is a servant, Nelly acts differently both while she is telling the story as well as in the story itself. Because she has been around for so long and holds the confidences of Catherine, Nelly is kind of like a servant-plus, above the rest of the servants. She gets a little bit egocentric about this later in the book; after Isabella runs away Edgar tries to put her back in place by threatening to fire her. Nelly still acts as the superservant, though, when Isabella begins to confide in her as well. Joseph also holds a type of superservant status, but only because he makes himself one by being so self-righteous. Is anyone else having a hard time figuring out what the heck he is saying?
ReplyDeleteNote on Joseph: He is depicted using the northern dialect Bronte would have been familiar with having grown up on the moors herself. Joseph's dialect though is particularly broad, making him almost incomprehensible to any "outsider" (the reader, of course, falling into this category). Why does Bronte do this? Perhaps to show that she can. Perhaps to say something about the relevance of Joseph's values and preoccupations. Consider both as you attempt to read his dialogue.
ReplyDeleteNelly's status in the book because of her class is definitely the most interesting, I agree Andrea. It is at times hard to remember how old Nelly truly is within the story because she acts as a motherly figure to everyone. Even within the two households, the servants seem to look up to her as if she were a seasoned veteran even though she is younger or not much older than the others. Also, if I'm not mistaken, when Nelly returns to Wuthering Heights after Isabella and Heathcliff are married, Bronte says that her presence in the house seemed to change the atmosphere for the better and make it less gloomy just as a kind mother does to a chaotic situation. It seems to me that she forgets her own place sometimes. Because Nelly is more deeply involved with the people in the book, because of her relationships with them, it is a big shock to her system when Heathcliff, after Hindley's death, when he flat out refused to listen to what she was telling him about Hareton and the state of the house.
ReplyDeleteErin
one of the big class differences i see is the general difference from those who live at wuthering heights and those at thrushcross grange. While both are supposed to be wealthier families, theres a very noticeable distinction between the two. Thrushcross grange is supposed to represent the good mannered aristocrats. They are a very socially sound and polite family. The family of Wuthering Heights, however, are an intense group of people. There is really no organization nor moral standard in this household. The two are nearly polar opposites, showing both extremes in the upper class.
ReplyDeleteAs Erin and Andrea said, Nelly seems to transecend the differences between the classes of master and servant. Heathcliff is an example of class in Wuthering Heights. At the beginning, he is a poor orphan who is looked down upon by the members of his adopted family, yet he is able to, eventually over the course of the novel, rise up and become wealthy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the biggest effect class has on relationships in the book, which people seem to be overlooking, is between Catherine and Heathcliff. Although they were both raised in the same houshold, Heathcliff is held as a lower status simply because of the way Hindley treats him. This affects Catherine's view on Heathcliff, even though they are the best of friends. When Catherine is telling Nelly of her agreement to marry Edgar, she admits that if she were to marry Heathcliff, she would be ashamed because of his state. Heathcliff's "class," so to speak, would embarrass Catherine, and she thinks that she would not be able to live with that. It is sad that in our world that we are so caught up in what other people think of us, that our friendships and relationships, that could potentially give us hapiness for the rest of our lives, are shaped and formed by the views of those around us.
ReplyDelete-Matt
Matt, I really like your argument about the class differences between Heathcliff, Catherine, and Edgar. The fact that Catherine would marry Edgar mainly for his social ranking speaks volumes about her character. Catherine is so shallow that she rejects the man that "completes her" to be with a man of higher prestige. Also,I think Chrissy raises an interesting point about the difference between the families on Thrushcross Grange and Wuthering Heights. In my opinion, the Lintons are of a higher class intellectually because they are good and vituous people. The Earnshaws, however, between their incest, swearing, and "knife-gun" weapons, act more like a bunch of hillbillies than they do people of high social class.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrea and Erin about how Nelly's class ranking is almost lost in this story. She is very fmailar with the families and has grown up around this rich people that she almost presents herself as part of the upper class. She probably does not mean to do this, because she is still obviously a servant, but her language seems to hint at it. I do find it interesting that even though class is a huge factor in this story all the characters seem to blend. There are characters that seem more "hillbie" like Bre said, but most of them seem to somehow be on the same level, even though they are very different families and people. It is almost hard to understand that any of this characters are wealthy and high class.
ReplyDeleteThere are obviously distinctions in class between the first generation of kids (i.e. Catherine, Heathcliff, Isabella, Hindley, Nelly), but no one has mentioned the next generation: Linton, Cathy, and Hareton. I think this distinction is most important as the book comes to a close. Cathy's change in attitude through the last chapters of the book is extraordinary. At first, she is infatuated with Linton because they are of the same class, but after he dies and Cathy begins to teach Hareton to read, she suddenly forgets about their class differences previous arguments, which is just as well, because it's not as if they interact with other people often enough to care about public opinion anyway.
ReplyDeleteI think Nelly is protected by her class throughout the book. She says pretty much what ever she wants, and decieves a lot of the characters without serious consequence. She even can also be called partly responsible for Catherine's death because of her behavior. However, I think because none of the characters feel threatened by her due to her status as a servant, they don't take the things she does as seriously as they would if a member of the family had done them. Her class makes them underestimate and overlook her deceitful and selfish acts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt's point about Heathcliff and Catherine's relationship. It's interesting to see how the more Hindley abuses Heathcliff in the novel, the more Cathy becomes fond of Edgar. it would be wise to marry Edgar. Hindley's actions make her see that she will never live the material life she wants with Heathcliff, and that the Linton family's higher-ranking status is easy to obtain. Although she starts out as a normal, likable character, her stay at Thrustcross Grange begins her journey towards materialism and selfishness. She cares so much about status that she totally disregards her and Heathcliff's feelings towards each other to have an unhappy marriage with Edgar.
ReplyDeleteI think Matt brings up a good point about how Heathcliff seems to be looked down upon in his own family (despite the fact he is adopted). Catherine latches on to Hindley's dislike for Heathcliff, and turns on him as well. This really shows the ignorance of the upper class because Catherine simply believes what she hears from others, and does no further investigation.
ReplyDelete-Nick G.
I agree with Courtney about the progress of the next generation of characters. They don't necessarily learn from the mistakes of their parents but rather are simply better people. Also, I think the wealth Heathcliff gained while away made him able to put the three children on more or less the same social ground.
ReplyDeleteI agree, that it seems that the characters are only concerned with their social status and not their integrity. The plethora of greed and disregard for the feelings of others gives wuthering heights the image of extravagance. I also agree with nick that the upper class of this society is very ignorant, and blind to the fact that their subordinates are more clever, and possible more intelligent that they are.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the attention the characters pay to class clouds their judgement of the other characters. As a lot of people have already mentioned, the obvious example of this is Heathcliff and Edgar's relationship. The hatred that each shows for the other is based solely on Heathcliff being adopted. Another example of this is Nell's relationship with all the characters. Nelly gives the air that she is the most reasonable of the character's, and therefore the smartest and so on. it is Nelly, however, who is telling the story, so this gives raise to the question, is Nelly telling the truth. Sorry Jeremy, but with this in mind, it is hard to say that the upper class is ignorant of their servants. Nelly could be letting her own judgements get in the way of telling the story, portraying herself in a good light, putting the other characters in a bad one.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Nick, for bringing us back to class and its effect on our primary narrator, Nelly. Bronte sets her story in an era definitely divided by class but isolated enough from "civilization" to enable characters like Nelly to cross traditional lines. She educates herself by borrowing from her master's library and develops personal leadership skills as the housekeeper in two estates. Why shouldn't such an accomplished woman resent the overbearing demands of Catherine, a girl younger and wilder than she but who happens to be in the upper class? And wouldn't this attitude shape Nelly's recollections of Catherine?
ReplyDeleteConnor, I do not see Heathcliff as leveling the social status of the children. Rather, he is determined to deprive Hareton of his birthright as payback to Hindley and relishes the boy's attraction to but difficulty in talking to young Catherine. You bring up another interesting consideration,though. Are the children actually "better people"? To what extent are these characters shaped by inborn traits as opposed to environmental factors and upbringing? We will be considering this in one of the panels the class will be working on this week. For your blog for Saturday, take yourself beyond the "soap opera". "Melodramatic" is far too mild a word to describe the extremes in behavior and emotion that Heathcliff and Catherine (I) demonstrate. Consider what each of these characters may represent beyond themselves. (Yes, the dreaded s word: symbolism!) You may discuss any of the other characters in this way as well. (How about the incomprehensible Joseph?) Or places?
Heathcliff represents the loss of opportunity due to a circumstance outside his control. It is not his fault he is of the servant class, but the way he acts does not help the matter. He represents the flaws that keep people from who or what they want to be.
ReplyDeleteCatherine represents the ideal that all people hope to attain in life, and the ignorance some show in attaining, or not attaining, happiness for the rest of their days. She is an example of having everything, and yet having nothing at the same time. She has wealth, land, and a good life on the outside, but on the inside she is tormented by her marriage to Edgar because of her love for Heathcliff. She feels that she made the wrong choice in whom she married. She represents the regret felt by people over missed opportunities or wrong decisions.
Joseph represents the confusion felt by the reader at the beginning of the story, and also the at times confusing chain of events that occur throughout the novel. Personally, I had a hard time following some of the timeline and the relationships between characters because there are many with the same names as others who appear before them, such as the multiple Catherines.
Heathcliff represents lost hope and what people do when they feel they have nothing left to lose. Rather than try to make his life better all he wants to do is blame his situation and take revenge on the world around him. He represents a desire for shared emotion; connecting to other people by hurting them, trying to find someone in his situation when there is no one like him anymore.
ReplyDeleteCatherine represents selfishness. She is a hypocrite because she says she and Heathcliff are spiritually linked and then marries for money, the most physical and impermanent thing in the world. Her remorse for the rest of the book seems to involve a lot of feeling sorry for herself and her sickness. She always talks about how she could die and no one would care, showing how much attention she really wants. When Heathcliff tells her that she has killed herself, I wanted him to forget her altogether because she betrayed him. Instead, he takes his rage out at everyone else, showing what obsession she drove people to. She does not seem like a heroine at all but more like a succubus.
Joseph is a reminder of the confusion that never goes away. After all, this is the account of Lockwood writing about Nelly's first hand experiences of many years before, so the undying presence of Joseph represents the fact that Lockwood never really knows what's going on or what to take from it. It is as garbled and disjointed as hearsay can be.
I think that Heathcliff is a little of both Nate and Connor's descriptions. I also kind of look at Heathcliff as a grown man with a child's optimism and mannerisms. Heathcliff's only goal in life was to impress Catherine and win her affection. Unfortunately this would never work, as Nate pointed out, due to Heathcliff's status. Heathcliff does try to make things better for himself, becoming rich and educated. This, to me, obviously shows that he has a small hope that he still can steel Catherine. Then the childlike side of Heathcliff begins to show, as he takes his revenge on seemingly everyone in the book, like Connor points out. Now I understand that Heathcliff's actions go beyond that of a child's, and are simply evil in regards. I do think, giving Heathcliff the benefit of the doubt, that in some way he is still trying to impress Catherine and gain her favor.
ReplyDeleteCatherine is indeed a very self centered character, thank you Connor. Catherine's actions seem to be all about putting the attention on her, but they are also about obtaining power. Catherine lust for power is in direct contradiction to the role's women played during Bronte's time. Catherine becomes arguably the single most powerful character in the book. She is the one who drives both Heathcliff and Edgar mad over their love for her. She also acts as a great manipulator.
Joesph is the confusion that never goes away in the novel. He also conveys the angst the characters feel to the reader with his manner of speech. I also agree with Connor's analysis of Joseph's role in how the story was narrated.
I agree with Nick's idea that Heathcliff symbolizes obsession over one thing (Catherine, in his case). I really disagree with Nate about how Catherine is a symbol of regret; I think of her more as a symbol of strength and (as Nick and Conner said) control because of how she manipluates everyone. I think that she and Nelly foil each other; they have different personalities but they both grapple for control (Catherine in ways already mentioned and Nelly when convincing Edgar that Catherine is faking her sickness, for example). I'm going to go on a different tangent about Joseph. Although his speech was utterly dusgusting, I think he's a bigger symbol for twisted religion than confusion. Other than moral comments from Nelly, brief mentions of heaven, and a methodical church-going, Joseph is the only source of religion in WH. He's really pious, but also rather hypocritical because he lives in that same squalor as everyone else. I think that, through Joseph, Bronte was making fun of real-life Bible-thumpers with well-stages piety and accents that we just as terrible. She must have met such people; wasn't her father a preacher?
ReplyDeleteI believe Heathcliff, while representing lost hope and lost opportunity as mentioned above, also embodies the word "Love". Through the entirety of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff does random, sometimes strange things to try to be closer to Catherine, his love. He goes as far to rip out one side of her halfway decomposed coffin so that his can be joined with hers when he dies. The jealousy and confusion that he feels as a result of his infatuation with Catherine lead him to throw hot applesauce on Edgar's face, and to even run away to try to become a member of the higher class so that he might be worthy of Catherine. So overall, I think Heathcliff also symbolizes young, passionate, unthinking love.
ReplyDeleteCatherine pretty much defines the word "control freak." As Nick said above, she always seems to be at the center of attention, and she seems to create drama in her life so that she can be paid attention to even more so. She begins life with a great friend in Heathcliff, an exciting life as a farmgirl, and an overall happy view of life. By the time she dies, Catherine has material wealth, but no friends, and no love in her life. This being said, Catherine symbolizes the downfall of spirituality and the rise of materialism; Catherine as a child was completely content with wearing average clothes and playing out in the mud with her best friend, Heathcliff--she led a life based on happiness. Her life went to shambles as she became more and more interested in money and power.
Joseph.......oh geez.....
I think Joseph is mainly in the story to help show how absolutely psychotic Heathcliff is. At the beginning of the story, the reader is led to believe that Joseph is a complete nutcase, going off on his religious rants and three hour sermons. Then, the reader witnesses Heathcliff scheming about how to take his revenge upon Edgar, and the horrible things he plans to do, like marry Edgar's sister and treat her like a slave, and get his son, Linton, to marry Edgar and Catherine's daughter so that Heathcliff would be the heir to Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange.
--Internet is working for now! woohoo!--
Catherine can almost be portrayed as a lost cause. She symbolizes exactly what people, particularly men, feared women would become if they had independence. She breaks one stereotype while creating another. Everything she does, says, and is portrays how selfish she is. Her grave is a perfect example.In the long run, Catherine won over both Heathcliff and Edgar because she was buried with both of them. She wanted anything and everything and was tempermental when she didn't get what she wanted. She had this mentality all the way through to her death.
ReplyDeleteWhile at first glance one might think Heathcliff would symbolize pure evil, I do not think that he is as awful as a character as he is made out to be. Many people mentioned he is about lost hope or opportunity, but I think its more that the opportunity was never there to begin with. Catherine teased Heathcliff, making him think one thing and later crushing him when she married Edgar. He was never shown proper love or affection and doesn't know what it feels like to be loved, nor how to show love back in return. He couldn't lose something he never had.
No one has mentioned Nelly yet. I think that she represents the foil of Catherine. She is what Catherine should be, showing the contrast. She is the lowest in class among all the characters, yet she is the one who really has all the power.
If, as runninfr33k (Evan?) says, Catherine represents the rise of materialism over spirituality, then she also represents the disadvantages of it. Personally, I didn’t understand why it was that big of a deal for her to marry up. We don’t hear of any time when the members of the two families interact with anyone from outside Crazy World (ie the Heights and the Grange) except the doctor. Little Catherine does this too. She mocks Hareton for his inferiority, but why does it matter? No one else cares! Anyway, materialism doesn’t do much for Catherine (back to the big one now). She is miserable her whole life, dies early with no legacy, and manages to act like a psychopathic bipolar power hungry miss independent on top of it all.
ReplyDeleteHeathcliff is harder to pin down. I think he has a lot of layers that everyone has sort of touched on, like revenge, jealousy, love, evil, lost hope. I think he just represents impulsiveness based on emotion. Whatever mood swing he happens to be having at the moment dictates his action. He can be loving, and then five minutes later he’s hanging a dog.
I guess Andrea is right about the religion thing, I didn’t think of that, but I don’t really think Joseph was significant at all, just every now and then Bronte wanted to be able to have her little “haha, I understand this and you don’t, look at me and how cool I am” moments.
I really like what Chrissy said about Nelly being a foil to Catherine. Also, when talking about each of their classes, Catherine wants to be more powerful and to have a higher place in society while Nelly seems perfectly content with her status and could care less.
ReplyDeleteI want to bring up the symbolism of locations in the novel, namely Wuthering Heights itself and Thrustcross Grange. "Wuthering Heights" is all about how love and obsession are interconnected, and each location and its inhabitants represents one of these feelings. Everyone that lives at Wuthering Heights has an obsession of some kind: Hindley and Heathcliff with revenge, Catherine with power and status, and Joseph with religion. However, Edgar and Isabella from Thrustcross Grange start out as genuinely in love when courting and marrying Catherine and Heathcliff. It's interesting to see how when these two combine, the love is unable to survive.
I think Catherine is a perfect example of a woman trying way too hard to get what she wants and in doing so pushes everyone away from her. I think in some regards symbolizes loneliness even though she is always surrounded with people usually under her control. I agree with everyone that pointed out that Catherine wanted as much power and to be in the highest class as possible.
ReplyDeleteHealthcliff to me represents change. Change is such an unavoidable thing in life and he defiantely made a huge change after returning rich. I also agree with the idea that he is lost hope. He has basically given over his life to Catherine, who doesn't even give him the time of day until they are both dead.
I think that in the book, Heathcliff represents the desire and willingness to do whatever one wants and makes his decisions completely based on what he wants. He has very little concept of other peoples' thoughts and feelings and only pursues his own personal goals. Nelly is the symbol of morals and reason. She handles situations as logically as possible and is not heartless like Heathcliff is in some instances. Nelly is the guiding light to characters in the book, while typically Heathcliff is the dark force that tries to corrupt people and twist them and events to his advantage.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that most of this has been said before, but with these long blogs it is hard to remember by the time I get to the bottom, so...
ReplyDeleteTo me, Heathcliff symbolizes what happens to a person who is torn. He loves CAtherine and wants to be with her but many things are stopping him. FOr one, he is disliked by Mrs. Earnshaw from the moment he enters WH so he does not feel the total unconditional love that HIndley and Catherine do which causes him to lose self-esteem. On top of that, Hindley, someone closer to Heathcliff's age, does not like him and enjoys showing his dislike. Then, Catherine rejects the idea of marrying Heathcliff because he is not of the proper class in society and so(although she does say she's marrying money to try to help Heathcliff) the love of his life leaves him. He tries to better himself and prove that she's missed out on something, but he never makes her understand this fact until she is dying and nothing can be done about it. In the end, Heathcliff is an angry, bitter person, who takes out his frustration on others. Or, in the case of Hareton, takes out his anger for HIndley on his son, Hareton.
Catherine, as many people have certainly pointed out, symbolizes Bronte's view of the female figure of her age. Bronte feels that a woman needs to be more ascertive and stick herself out there to get power. In the end, however, Bronte realizes that if a woman were to have power, society would, if not collapse, begin to deteriorate, and so Catherine must die. However, Bronte also understood that the time for a woman's power was coming and so Young Catherine, who is much stronger and knows how to better control her power over others, lives to see a better day.
Erin
In addition to how Catherine represents control, she also represents the stubbornness to change. This is the exact opposite to what Heathcliff represents. Catherine only wants to do what she wants, and seems to ignore advice if it is not exactly what she wants to hear (i.e. Nelly's advice). In a way, this makes Heathcliff and Catherine the perfect match (opposites attract).
ReplyDeleteI think Catherine represents the need for power. She claims that Heathcliff was the most important thing to her, but when she marries Edgar she shows that is obviously not true. Power over other people is the only thing she cares deeply about. When she starts to lose some of the power she has over Edgar and Heathcliff, partly due to another powerful character, Nelly, she is willing to die to get it back, which shows that she values it over her own life.
ReplyDeleteI think Heathcliff represents not only revenge, but single-mindedness. Throughout his life, he's really had nothing but Catherine. He focuses all of his attention on winning her over because of this, and is willing to do anything to be with her, even be buried next to her and her husband. Almost everything Heathcliff does is because it has something to do with Catherine, and rarely does he do something soley for himself. Though Heathcliff seems completely selfish throughout the entire book, he's really only doing any of these things because of Catherine.
I believe that Nelly symbolizes both a guiding light for the reader and a guiding light for the many characters which she looks after throughout the course of the novel, especially Catherine. As the reader is first introduced to the unusual manor of Wuthering Heights, he/she feels lost in the 19th century household. Like what Nate said, Joseph symbolizes this confusion felt by the reader. We are met with no background to any of the characters when the novel begins. However, Nelly acts like map of the whole story. She can tell us who is who, what happened where, when it happened and each character's story. More so, Nelly also advices the other characters of each house, especially Catherine, depending upon where she is currently employed. Throughout the novel we are given scenes of Catherine turning to Nelly for advice on what to do, whether she likes what she receives or not. Without Nelly in the novel, the story would not make any sense at all.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Catherine is concerned, I think of her as a selfish, yet determined woman who will do whatever it takes to get what she wants. Even as a young girl she cares very little about her morality or how her decisions affect other people. For these reasons, I would say Catherine is a symbol of the dangers of a need for power without love. I totally agree with Erin that the reason she had to die was because the time period wasn't ready for a woman to have power, therefore, Young Catherine was born to fulfill this position for the future generation, but to do it in regards to what others want as well.
ReplyDeleteAs Evan said, Heathcliff represents love, but (like Chrissy stated) he doesn't know how to love. Therefore, he represents emotion without logic. Heathcliff clearly loves Catherine more than she loves him, because she was the only person he ever really did love, except for her father.
Finally, Katie made a really interesting point about location that I'm surprised no one else has commented on yet. She said that Wuthering Heights symbolizes an obsession with love and Thrustcross Grange was more concerned with genuine love. The combination of the two was interesting, but also sad in my opinion. Edgar and Isabella did all they could to show Catherine and Heathcliff their love for them, but all Catherine and Heathcliff could do was obsess over each other.
Catherine definitely represents the corruption that exists in the class system. This corruption is evident when catherine chooses to marry Edgar, instead of following her heart and marrying Heathcliff. This completely ingenuine love leads to several problems, and occurrences throughout the novel. This choice forces Heathcliff to leave for three years and accumulating a vast amount of wealth. This, in turn, leads to his complete control of the manors, and all the people that inhabit them. Catherine symbolizes the innate greed and selfishness that exists in all men.
ReplyDeleteI would like to expand on what Nick G began to say about Heathcliff. Heathcliff does represent change, to an extent; physical change would be more accurate. This change can be seen when Heathcliff leaves Wuthering Heights and returns years later a changed man; well, sort of. Heathcliff has changed. He has more money and is a more dignified and proper man, but this is the extent of his change. Heathcliff did not, however, change his personality at all. He is still the rude abusive man that he has always been. It is as if Heathcliff was only wearing a disguise: he looks different on the outside, but he is the same man on the inside.
ReplyDeleteI thought what Jeremy was was interesting about how the class system leads to corruption in the human mind. The love between Catherine and Heathcliff seem, at times, to almost symbolize this corruption itself. For thousands and millions of years, every civilization has functioned under some sort of class system, but to various degrees. Whether there was the extreme class systems that were protected under the law, or the artificial ones like that are present in the U.S. today, they have always been there. You would think that something that has had such influence on human civilization and development would help mankind, not hurt it. But the class system that is present in Wuthering Heights suggests differently. When Catherine confides in Nelly that it would be "degrading to marry Heathcliff," we see that the class system, in this case, based solely on monitary status, can affect a person's decisions. Love is generally accepted in literature as long lasting and unaffected. In Wuthering Heights, however, the class system easily triumphs over the strong love bond that seem to bind Catherine and Heathcliff.
ReplyDelete-Matt