How does Veeky Forums feel about

It absolutely BTFOs all other Victorian literature in the same style because it is precisely not that. Unless I was George Eliot I would honestly be embarrassed to be Emily's sister

Heathcliff was just a whiny foreign cunt who got cucked.
Edgar just had no spine, took tea with soy.
Hindley was was alpha until his "ho into a housewife" died and he let the brown boy back into his house.

It is soy but at least it's selfish and vile throughout (save for last few pages)

>+1 for this.

Is it better than Jane Eyre?

The only Wuthering Heights I know is by Kate Bush.

The only "wuthering" here is that from Currer Bell storming upon his siblings to avoid being detected as perhaps the dullest novelist in the history of novelists. Seriously each episode following immaterial sluts and respectable gentlemen primarily from the North as they seek matrimony has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the works’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of class, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Bell vetoed the idea of reprinting his brothers superior works; he made sure his work would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody. Just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for his books. The eldest Bell's works might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-Musketeers series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the morals were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "strolled."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Bell's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that he has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Jane Eyre by the same Charles Dickens. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Jane Eyre at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Charles Dickens." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Shirley" you are, in fact, trained to read Charles Dickens.

Why so bitter user? Discomfort knowing some 19th century lass wrote with more brilliance than you could ever touch with even your prick?

Finished it yesterday, it's devastating and tragic. Certainly not soy, and if you've read it, you'd have known that.

Heathcliffe is one of the biggest shits I've read in literature.

Nicest thing to happen in the book is when the young Catherine becomes friends with Hareton and teaches him to read.

Everything else in the book is passive-aggressive manipulation, evil intentions, selfish deeds and psychological mind games. Genuinely surprised me due to how often it seems adapted as a romance novel - every romance in the book is fucking dead. Brutal book.

Georges Bataille wrote a whole essay expressing his incredulity that a 19 year old from a sheltered rural background could write such a dark book. Bataille, who wrote porn about hard-boiled eggs and watersports, thought that Emily was hardcore.

There are so many things about this book that are impressed. Its descriptive writing about nature, its dialect-infused dialogue, which was stylistically brave for its time, its completely frank depictions of tragedy and nastiness. It will survive in the canon for hundreds of years.

I remember being surprised about how at times the descriptions do all the talking, like when Heathcliffe returns to Thrushcross Grange to meet Catherine and Edgar and Emily summarises it as Catherine's tea has gone cold and Edgar's tea is mostly spilt, showing Catherine is focused on Heathcliffe and Edgar doesn't like any of it rather than spelling it out with a long conversation. Genuinely a beautiful moment.

Wuthering Heights is the real deal.

It's kinda interesting to compare it with Jane Eyre (given Emily was Charlotte's younger sister). Jane Eyre is OK, but WH makes it look very "adolescent-girlish".

There's a lot of stupid romanticism built up around it but the bottom line is, in spite of all the people who say it's very good, it really is very good.