Wuthering Heights: Cultural Criticism

I thought today’s reading was very interesting. One thing that caught my attention was the first few paragraphs. They described how when people typically think of the word “culture” they think of “high culture (411).” It then goes on to explain that “cultural critics want to make the term refer to popular, folk, urban, and mass (mass-produced, -disseminated, -mediated, and –consumed) culture, as well as to that culture we associate with the so-called classics (411).”

The next paragraph states that “Raymond Williams […] suggested that ‘art and culture are ordinary’; he did so not to ‘pull art down’ but rather to point out that there is ‘creativity in all our living… We create our human worlds as we have thought of art being created’ (Revolution 37).” This part basically means to me that culture depends on how you look at things; at how you perceive things in life. Someone who grew up in the slums could have a completely different perception on a certain book than someone who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. These two completely different people, however, must come together to exchange what they think about that book and figure out what the author was really trying to say, and not put their own spin onto things. This is what cultural critics have to do. “They seek to understand the social contexts in which a given text was written, and under what condition it was—and is—produced, disseminated, read, and used (412).” Yes, cultural critics like reading and writing and learning about topics they’re interested in, but at the same time, they force themselves to critique other people’s ideas and works that aren’t interested in the same things that they are. Think about it. Wouldn’t you get bored looking at the same type of stuff all day, every day? I know I would.

Wuthering Heights: Cultural Documents & Illustrations

When I started reading today's assignment, I was a little bit unnerved with what it was saying about woman back in the 1800s. "In 1847, when Bronte's novel was published, married women were not allowed to hold property in their own names; once married, both personal and real property (land) came into the possession of their husbands (289)." I mean, I guess I kind of knew that they didn't have that many rights, but I never knew that it was this serious. For example, on page 289, it tells of a woman who was accused of cheating on her husband and not only did she lose her good reputation, but she lost her name, her money, and everything else that ever belonged to her. "In 1827 Caroline married George Chapple Norton, a young barrister of limited income and a violent temper. Her husband first exploited his wife's friendship with Lord Melbourne to obtain a minor governmental appointment, then accused Lord Melbourne of adultery with his wife and brought a lawsuit against him. Although acquitted, Caroline Norton's reputation was tarnished, and she lived apart from her husband, who nonetheless continued to claim his legal right to her earnings as an author (289-290)."

I was also surprised with the way they handled marriages and divorces between the different socioeconomic classes. It's not like it is today, where everyone, in most cases, has the same chances of getting divorced. However, back in the 1800s "the poorer classes have no form of divorce amongst them (297)." Instead, "the rich man makes a new marriage, having divorced his wife in the House of Lords: his new marriage is legal; his children are legitimate; his bride occupies, in all respects, the same social position as if he had ever previously been wedded. The poor man makes a new marriage, not having divorced his wife in the House of Lords; his new marriage is null; his children are bastards; and he himself hi liable to be put on his trial for bigamy [...] (298)." This passage kind of made me really step back and think about how times have changed so much. It also made me wonder why the government thought that having the law this way was a good idea.

Wuthering Heights

The last time I read Wuthering Heights I was a senior in high school in my AP Literature class. I’m not sure why, but this book just brings back bad memories whenever I think about it. When I saw that we were going to read it, I almost cried (not really, but did sigh really loudly). But as I started reading it again, I was a lot more interested in it than I was a few years ago. I started understanding things a little better and I started comprehending the plot a lot more. This just proves that you can’t just read something once. In order to get the full effect of the story, you have to read it more than just one time.

Anyway, I really liked some parts of the novel that were in chapter three. For example, on page 38 Mr. Lockwood describes reading a bunch of the deceased Catherine Earnshaw’s dairies. “I shut, and took up another, and another, till I had examined them all. Catherine’s library was select; and its state of dilapidation proved it to have been well used, though not altogether for a legitimate purpose; scarcely one chapter had escaped pen and ink commentary – at least, the appearance of one – covering  every morsel of blank that the printer had left. Some were detached sentences; other parts took the form of a regular diary, scrawled in an unformed, childish hand. At the top of an extra page, quite a treasure probably when first lighted on, I was greatly amused to behold an excellent caricature of my friend Joseph, rudely yet powerfully sketched (38).” I really liked this passage not only because of the imagery that is used to describe the pages in the different books, but also because of the way he describes the books. For instance, the fact that the pages are torn and written and drawn in not only shows that the owner of the books really enjoyed reading, but she enjoyed it so much that she was more than willing to make them her own; to personalize them.

Reading Within Walls

While reading today's assignment, I particularly enjoyed the first part entitled Reading Within Walls. I think the reason I enjoyed it so much was because the author focused on how back then, women couldn't really express themselves and it was unladylike to read.

In the beginning of the chapter, the narrator talks about how certain books had different colored binding. On page 225 it states "One of my girl cousins loved to read (later, one summer, I borrowed from her John Dickson Carr's The Black Spectacles and was hooked for the rest of my life) and we both read Salgari's private adventures, bound in yellow. Sometimes she borrowed a Just William book from me, in the series bound in green. But the pink-bound series, which she read with impunity, was (at the age of ten I distinctly knew) forbidden to me. Its covers were a warning, brighter than any spotlight, that these were books no proper boy would read. These were books for girls." I thought that this was quite interesting. He was perfectly capable of sharing novels with his female cousin when it was something that he enjoyed as well. However, as soon as it came time for him to find another book to read, he made it perfectly clear that it wasn't "cool" or "acceptable" for him to read the books in the pink binding. Later, he goes on to tell about one of his gay friends that wanted him to proofread his pink-bounded book and was reluctant at first because of what he thought other people might think about him carrying around a pink-bounded book. "I was told that those pink-covered series were for girls, and being seen with one of them in my hands would have labelled me effiminate; I remember the look of surprised reproval on the face of the Buenos Aires shopkeeper when I once bought one of the pink-covered books, and how I had to explain quickly that I meant it as a gift for a girl (228)." Just this anecdote alone shows how sexist their society was back then.

Another thing I found interesting was when the narrator quoted something that the Greek philosopher Plato said. "Though Plato wrote that in his ideal republic schooling would be compulsory for both boys and girls, one of his disciples, Theophrastus, argued that women should be taught only as much as was necessary to manage a household, because advanced education 'turns a woman into a quarrelling, lazy gossip (226).'" Not only did I find this quote interesting, but somewhat insulting that I had to make myself read it once more just to make sure I read it correctly. I have to  disagree with what  Plato's friend said. It is very possible for a woman to read a book and not become a "quarrelling, lazy gossip". In fact, most women had so much to do around the house that they probably read while doing all their household chores. I also feel that if anyone, not just women, reads something new that they are automatically expanding their learning by exposing themselves to new vocabulary and new ways to use that vocabulary in different sentences.