Emily Lloyd-Jones

Eng 223

Take-Home Midterm

February 12, 2008

Although both Schorer and Wion take very different stances, they both agree that Hareton and Cathy have a more tranquil relationship. Schorer argues that it is because of Bronte’s own motivations for writing the novel (to instruct her readers in passion). Wion insists that it is because they had a stable mother figure in their younger years, so the pair were never able to develop a sense of self.

Schorer’s says that the reason Hareton and Cathy’s relationship is calmer is because Bronte’s passion “end[ed] in a bed of ashes” (47). Bronte set out with a very specific intent—to show the city “dandy” Lockwood what the “nature of a grand passion” is (44). Every aspect of the book is meant to distance the reader from the calmness of the city. She uses imagery drawn from nature to show her audience how wild and untamed the characters are. But by the end of the book, her energy burns itself out and she no longer follow through with her own intentions. Instead, she allows the second generation to have the happiness that the first never achieved. Everything in the book happens because of Bronte’s motivations. It is a conscious decision on her part.

Wion digs into Bronte’s subconscious. His views are that Bronte’s own past is what drove her to write the novel and the characters are extensions of herself. Because Bronte had no stable mother figure, she wrote Heathcliff and Catherine with such unnatural passion. He claims that the reason Hareton and Cathy are more stable is because they had Nelly to raise them until they were able to form their own identities. Because they are not dependent on one another, they can function and grow. Nelly can also understand their relationship, which is born of fondness and friendship. Heathcliff and Cathy’s wild affair is foreign to Nelly, so she cannot deal with or encourage it. “With Hareton and the younger Catherine, however, she can play the role of mother much more appropriately” (Wion 377).

Both critics agree that the first generations untamed passions differ greatly from the calm fondness of the second and that it was because of Bronte’s personality. But Wion has decided that it is because of Bronte’s psychological issues and she might not have even recognized she was trying to work through them in her novel. Schorer places more significance on Bronte’s intentions for writing the novel, and how those changed through the course of her writing. Instead of instructing her readers, she ends up learning about herself.

While they both come to the same conclusion that Heathcliff and Catherine’s relationship is abnormally strong, Mathison and Wion’s different approaches led them along different paths to that conclusion. Mathison takes a more formalistic approach by focusing solely on the text, ignoring all the outside factors. Wion, on the other hand, is fascinated by how Bronte projected her own psychological problems onto her characters.

Mathison says that the power of Heathcliff and Catherine’s relationship is shown fully to the reader by contrasting the two characters with Nelly. Nelly’s relationships are based on superficial reasons. One example is her admiration for the Linton children because of their respectable upbringing. It is Nelly’s obvious ordinariness that often drives the characters into conflict. Her inability to conceive of how deep Heathcliff and Catherine’s affection goes is what keeps her silent while young Catherine blurts out that she is going to marry Edgar. Only when Heathcliff slips out “Nelly admits that Heathcliff had heard much, confirms the disaster” (Mathison 347). Her very ordinariness alienates the readers, making them condemn her superficiality. The relationship between Heathcliff and Catherine is brought more sharply into focus because of the obvious lack of superficiality in it. “A dialogue between Heathcliff and Nelly emphasizes this superficiality […] by contrasting her explanation with his” (Mathison 348).

Wion’s approach is biographical, delving into Emily Bronte’s past and using it to identify factors that could have influenced Wuthering Heights. Wion claims that their closeness is the result of Catherine’s biological mother dying when Catherine is very young. She never learns to become her own person and clings to Heathcliff like she would a parent. Emily Bronte’s mother died when she was extremely young, leaving her to take care of her younger sisters. Coincidentally, nearly every wife in Wuthering Heights dies long before their husband. Her separate identity is never fully formed and neither is Heathcliff’s, who never had a chance to develop his own self. “The love of Catherine and Heathcliff is modeled on the primal bond between child and mother” (Wion 367).

Mathison ignores the effects that Bronte’s own history could have had on the novel. His formalistic approach looks only at the text itself and that leads him to focus on the most obvious character: Nelly. Wion, with his biographical approach, looks at Bronte for insight into the characters. Because of the lack of a mother figure in Bronte’s life and the surrogate nanny, Wion chooses to focus his attention on the seemingly irrelevant character of Mrs. Earnshaw. It is ironic that while both essays come to the same conclusion, neither actually looks at the two characters involved in the relationship to come to that end. Rather, it is the parental authorities that are examined.

Wion’s essay goes farther to discuss the intricacies of the relationship of Heathcliff and Catherine. He takes into account nearly every character’s relationship to mothers, as well as the oral fixation that plays into his theory. Mathison focuses merely on Nelly and uses her as a contrast instead of delving into the actual relationship. Everything is seen through Nelly’s eyes, so all he concentrates on is the main character. Mrs. Earnshaw is never even mentioned.