Thread 24825220

Why is it so underrated on /lit/?
Is it the simple and profoundly sad answer that most /lit/ dwellers have never experienced love?

>>24825220 (OP)
>Is it the simple and profoundly sad answer that most /lit/ dwellers have never experienced love?
That, and the fact that it was written by a woman. Those two things ensured it would never be appropriately respected and admired on this board.

>>24825277
A man dealing with obsessive and unconsummated love his entire tortured life is the sort of thing women find romantic, but men maybe not as much? I don't know what men find romantic, but probably something like The Odyssey.

>>24825306
>probably something like The Odyssey
>pine for your wife and family and home after a brutal war
>end up sailing to a hot witch's island
>bang her for THREE YEARS without needing to, utterly betraying your wife
>woops lol i must really be going now
>sail around some more, end up at ANOTHER island with a total nymph babe
>fuck around even more for however many years, this woman just waits on you hand and foot, feeds you and you smash
>woops i must really be going now lol
>finally end up going home
>your wife has stayed loyal all this time
>your kid is a homicidal maniac and kills like half the servants in your house
what pray tell was romantic about the odyssey

>>24825319
>what pray tell was romantic about the odyssey
Pretty much everything you said. Romantic means "gives you a boner," right?

>>24825220 (OP)
It's a great book, but you didn't get it if you think it was a romance.

>>24825394
It is so frighteningly romantic to the point of alienating most readers. Whether it is a romance or something else depends on how you interpret not the novel, but love itself.

>>24825220 (OP)
Which Bronte sister was the best?

It was the only book I refused to read for summer reading. (I still aced the test thanks to Spark Notes). Its a book for women.

>>24825518
I read the first half of Americanah, wrote an essay on its themes, and my professor gave me an A+ and complemented me on my "thorough and thoughtful analysis". College is a joke.

>>24825220 (OP)
>Why is it so underrated on /lit/?
It's written by a woman. Thay automatically filters many who expect it to be a darker and racier pride and prejudice (the way it is treated in pop culture doesn't help to be fair)
Never heard or anyone actively disliking it, though to really understand its profundity requires a bit of thought

>>24825319
Is this not what men find romantic? A desirable, heroic man even the gods want to fuck (and often do) with a hot, loyal wife at home? What else would a male romance look like?
If I'm off base, you can tell me what makes men swoon. I don't really know.

>>24826067
You have fallen in the 2700-year-old trap of social programming. Penelope is the true hero of The Odyssey. Odysseus is no more than a lowly passive agent who rehearses grief on the shore, but never has the courage to swim.

>>24825220 (OP)
It's my favorite book and I've even ended up visiting the Bronte Parsonage on vacation because of it.

>>24826185
That's nice. I wasn't even aware of such a museum. What do you like so much about the novel? Do you relate to Heathcliff or Cathy?

>>24826278
I guess if I had to choose it would be Heathcliff, but I just like how dark and real it is compared to Jane Eyre and Tenant of Windfall Hall where the writing is good but I can't help but feel a thin layer of artificiality. It's kinda fascinating how someone so sheltered could produce something like it. I like the descriptions of the landscape and how they parallel the whole passion and love vs realism and security thing, especially after visiting Haworth myself. I like the exploration of how Heathcliff and Catherine's psychology and love develop in the earlier parts of the story, especially as they have to contend with Hindley and Edgar. I like how Heathcliff is unashamedly pure evil and does some of the worst things possible but I can't really hate him and even feel a little sorry for him and even sometimes cheer him on because it's all driven by idealistic love that's unrequited due to the realities of life. So overall I think those are the two strengths of the novel, that relatable desire to want to dwell in your passions and that feeling of injustice towards life for getting the way, as well as having a brutal, awful villain that you can't help but think is based.

>>24825220 (OP)
>women are absolutely vile and vapid whores with a fatal weakness to narcissistic sociopaths: the novel
it's a pretty redpilling novel, honestly.

I find the comments about it being 'for women' pretty amusing and hilarious knowing that critics at the time were incredulous that it was written by a female author. I think those philistines have a preconceived notion about it being a romance, which it isn't - though it has plenty of romance in its contents.

Emily was only 27-28 when she penned this masterpiece. What are you doing with your life, anon?

>>24825220 (OP)
This cover is really good
Name of this publisher?

>>24826666
Checked
The new movie is sure to not beat the allegations of it being for women

>>24826777
Double checked.
I've never watched a movie adaptation of this novel, I can imagine they're all hot garbage and Heathcliff is probably presented as this hot sexy brooding stud with fair skin, dark hair and deep blue eyes instead of the vindictive lascar he is in the novel, basing off of the casts I've seen for Jane Eyre where Rochester is always an attractive tall chad instead of the ugly, swarthy 40 years old something guy in the novel. It's really a peculiar irony how, for being 'stories for women', scriptwriters always make bone-deep alterations to everything about these stories to make them suitable for the female audience.

great book, for years I have overlooked it because I thought it was a romance written for women.
Finally gave it a chance and it became one of my favorite books. I'll probably end up reading the books written by her sisters, too.

>>24825220 (OP)
It's literally Hysteria: The Novel.

>>24825501
I don't know much about Anne, but Emily was something of a basket case. Needed someone to sleep with her, cried frequently, was extremely introverted, hard to deal with, and wrote eyebrow-raising stuff about her brother Branwell. It's clear the intensely repressive modus of English country life she was subjugated to cultivated most of this.

Charlotte was very literary, spoke French, had an unrequited crush on a married teacher at one point (probably got all the inspiration for Jane Eyre and Vilette from there), a bit domineering on her sisters, and modified some of the manuscripts they wrote and even burned the incomplete draft of a novel Emily worked on before she died.

>>24826319
I think it makes sense for someone like Emily, who lived in isolation most her life, to write a novel, which even if very imaginative still has its entire plotline span just two remote country homesteads on the moors separated by 4 miles. Her life had perfectly equipped her to realize that kind of setting, but she still had insane creativity to reap such an intricate and gripping story out of it all.

>>24825220 (OP)
Is it comfy or will I want to blow my brains out?

>>24826140
Ok, sure, but what would be romance for men then? Garden State?

>>24827268
It's not comfy at all, it's pretty stormy and violent, in a good way. Almost all the characters in it are assholes.

>>24827275
For me, comfy = romantic (in the historic sense of the word)

>>24827273
There is no such thing as romance "for men" or "for women." Romance is whatever you affirm it to be. To align yourself with an abstract biological category is to deny your own identity.

>>24827294
Did you come here from Tumblr? Fucking exhausting. There are consistent trends in tastes and fantasies between the sexes, now fuck off.

>>24827294
And ywnbaw, almost forgot

>>24826691
It's above the title, anon...

>>24826319
>Jane Eyre and Tenant of Windfall Hall where the writing is good but I can't help but feel a thin layer of artificiality.
Anne Bronte's Agnes Grey is Jane Eyre without that artificiality. It's the same premise of a woman in financial hardship becoming a governess for rich children, but her journey is more relatable, the children are more realistic, and her romance is more humble, down to earth and authentic.

>>24826787
Try the Mexican adaptation by director Luis Bunuel. The movie is black and white so I can't tell for sure, but I'm going to assume anyway that Heathcliff is reasonably brown.

It was fun even though they changed the ending and got rid of Wuthering Heights: The Next Generation. Nobody likes the second half of the book starring the children except for me.

>>24826673
>rich daddy
>male family connections
>male editors, male publisher, male ghost writers
>"Oh my god this woman BROKE LITERATURE"
>"She was only 27!!!!1111"

You belong on reddit

>>24827294
Correct post. Don't let the knee jerk reaction of the other retards from here deter you. They're bootlickers and culture warriors from Twitter who don't have an identity on their own.

>>24827441
her family was on the poor side and her accomplishments need no embellishments, even if they deface your nonexistent ones.

>>24827444
>even if they deface your nonexistent ones.

Lol my accomplishments are far more important than your meme reddit girl.

>>24827456
If you have to rebuke this kind of statement this then your 'accomplishments' don't even rise to the fantasy you hold of them in your own imagination, my mobile-posting imbecile.

>>24827460
Retard

>>24827469
Subhuman /lit/let. Can't muster a response? Good, wouldn't want to tire those sausage fingers tapping on your jeetdroid or whatever mobile you're posting from. Now close the tab and fuck off.

>>24827483
Bitch STFU you are a simp for nepo baby chick lit you pretend to read to impress art ho's who also never read it.

>>24825220 (OP)
I read it, and it mostly just pissed me off. Catherine is the bitch. Heathcliff is the black bull. Everyone else are various variations of cucks. Nobody does anything good in that novel, and I somewhat regret investing into it what I did given how much it pissed me off. It's the OG goonslop book, without graphic depictions of sex and instead spiritual gooning or some shit.

It is written pretty well, at least. Good imagery and diologue. I heard her sister, Charlotte Bronte was less of a freak and actually touched grass, unlike Emily, so maybe I will read her next
>>24825306
>I don't know what men find romantic
As a man, I found Paradise Lost romantic. I also found the Epic of Gilgamesh romantic, even if in a gay or platonic way. The Odyssey only sort of romantic, just in that they finally get back together at the end and Penelope isn't an idiot. Odysseus kind of pisses me off because he just fucks everyone, though I guess at least he returns home in the end. I thought Orpheus and Eurydice was romantic. Romeo and Juliette was good.

Wuthering Heights is why you don't stick your dick in crazy. It's also why you don't fuck your sister. I do not see depth in it, just foid goon material and psychological torture porn. I get why people like it, seeing as I like physically gorey books where people go through torturous situations, but I like it to go somewhere, you know? I like for the suffering to be for something in the end.

I really liked the Importance of being Ernest. I thought that was kind of romantic and cute because of the chemistry. Frankenstein would have been romantic if he actually made the woman creature. My guy was so lonely and sad.

As for more contemporary stuff. SAO abridged is very romantic. Re Zero is romantic, if frustrating. Adventure Time got romantic, between Simon and his gf. Fry and Lila from Futurama is always pretty romantic. I always thought Peter and Louis from Family guy were suprisingly wholesome. I also liked Shrek a lot.

>>24827494
Still repeating this lie? I already told you she was basically impoverished. She worked as a governess and she and her sisters only took up the pen to pay the bills. She also had no 'male editors' nor used any family connections, which they had very little to begin with. Her accomplishments are her own, and now, in addition to them, we can add a good humiliation for fragile and weak ego.

>>24827514
It's not a lie. You only need to look on Wikipedia:

>Emily Brontë was born on 30 July 1818[3] to Maria Branwell, the daughter of a wealthy Penzance merchant and property owner

She grew up as a rich nepobaby. Also

>two of Branwell Brontë's friends claimed that Branwell was the true author of the novel. An anonymous article followed in People's Magazine expressing incredulity that such a work could have been written by "a timid and retiring female"

Even the people back then knew but because of feminism we have to pretend it wasn't ghost written by men.

>torn between incels who think it's "foidslop" and incels who think this "foidslop" was written by a male author
I at least have more respect for the former, because they engage directly with the material unlike the latter who are more occupied with personal conflicts with women and insecurity.

>>24827496
There are no blacks in the book you insane cringelord

It's very long but I binged it in about 4 days, reading a lot each day. It's an excellent novel. I think Jane Eyre was much better, especially in the prose, but even here the prose is top notch. It's definitely crafted to torment anyone who reads it, most off the novel feels like it descends into shadow-filled misery for a very long time, uncharacteristic of most stuff written at the time and even since, which makes the hopeful elements in the story pop out strongly whenever they are. It's the kind of stuff someone who grew up surrounded by cruelty could compose, and readers who haven't had similar experiences would be filtered by a lot of it. Stepping back into these gothic novels always fills me with wonderment at how, no matter how shit or good they are, they are always composed in perfect fashion to fulfill their task. There's not one word too many or too few, they never drag on, writers gave everything its right due, even if a modern reader could balk at how some elements are too long or something of the sort. I thought Nelly, even if she was incomprehensibly retarded at many points, was a great character, and I pitied Hareton a lot. He deserved better. There was one section where Edgar was being brutally cucked that was funny.


I'll set myself on reading Tenant at Wildfell Hall and Agnes Gray next. Heard those are the most underrated Bronte novels.

>>24827525
That changes nothing; Emily lived poor most of her life, she worked as a governess, a humiliating post that only working class women took on. That's the "nepobaby" life you're claiming she lived, you miserable shitskin?

>>two of Branwell Brontë's friends claimed that Branwell was the true author of the novel. An anonymous article followed in People's Magazine expressing incredulity that such a work could have been written by "a timid and retiring female"
If this is true, than Branwell was the most feminine man to have ever lived, seeing that WH has femininity written all over it. Mind you these are the same 'anonymous' people who probably wrote the article, joining many other critics who presumed the Brontes were all men before they dropped their pen names.

>>24827685
>the most feminine man to have ever lived

There is nothing feminine about the book.

>>24827691
Why are you making a conjecture about a novel you never read, plebe?

>>24827694
I watched the film adaptation, that sort of counts.

If love as a man involved a woman pursuing me and confessing her love for me and then sacrificing the rest of her life to me as my work horse, then I'd read about it all day too..

The truth is that you're not made to feel special as a man in most romance stories. It just reminds me of the fact that my romantic success is mostly tied to my economic success and/or status. Made to feel like an object or a tool. Reminded that most relationships are transactional.

If there is a book out there where a completely average joe marries a supermodel-CEO (being hyperbolic, any kind of "dating down" will do) then point me in its direction.

>>24827273
>but what would be romance for men then?
Lars and the real girl.

The ending with Heathecliff being buried next to Catherine was pretty infuriating and a denial of much-awaited karmic justice that should've been delivered on him.

>>24825501
Emily is the hottest can confirm

>>24826673
If I didn't live in a society that let me jerk off to infinite pornography I would also be a genius

>>24826067
No.

>>24827496
>Heathcliff is the black bull
What did anon mean by this?

>>24827999
This is true.

>>24825220 (OP)
It's slower than reading Dune Messiah and 3 volumes...I could understand if I felt anything but boredom. I told my English Lit teacher this and she kicked me out of the classroom. Just for me to come back the next day because our headmaster told her, "Expressing ones opinion over a book is what you are supposed to do. If he thought it was boring, who is to say he was wrong."

>>24827757
Don't know about books, but there are romantic comedies like Notting Hill, that Jlo/Owen Wilson movie, that Seth rogen/Charlize Theron movie. I think the Seth Rogen movie may have even been targeted at men.
I assume there are romance books like this, but I wouldn't know them.
I can understand the sentiment. Women's greatest asset is our looks and we're inundated with examples of otherwise useless women being valued because they're pretty. Men's greatest asset is their finances and we're inundated with examples of ugly, horrible but rich men with beautiful women.
And it's probably a grass is greener situation on both sides. To me it seems like almost no woman wants a Donald Trump but every man wants a Melania. To a man it probably seems the other way around.

>>24828224
>Women's greatest asset is our looks and we're inundated with examples of otherwise useless women being valued because they're pretty
I understand this, the looks vs money transaction. But the Twilights and the 50 Shades of Greys have average Jane female leads, seemingly put there as self inserts (okay so Kristen Stewart is beautiful but you get the idea). It's also just easier for you to eat less and put on makeup than it is for me to become a wealthy socialite.

>And it's probably a grass is greener situation on both sides
Possibly. But the other answer to the question (of why men don't consume romance stories) is that men just don't love, and that's not true, we love deeply. So I'd rather believe that most romances are just not targetted at men.

And for the record I think most men definitely do NOT want a Melania. Thanks for the recs.

>>24827213
The problem with trying to state what Emily Brontë was like is that there's very little known about her (and what's known is coloured by Charlottes and subsequent biographers mythologising). But from what I've read, she didn't cry a lot, spent plenty of time sleeping alone (her sisters were frequently away for school and work) and while possibly eccentric, was certainly not a 'basket case'. I've also never heard of her writing 'eyebrow-raising stuff' about her brother — could you post an example?

>>24827538
>>24828155
Name ONE time Heathcliff's skin color is mention. He was adopted, dirty, and described very much like an animal. Emily left his race unclear on purpose.

And what does Catherine do? She chooses to get married to make that guy a betabucks while she actually wants to fuck Heathcliff while retaining her money and status and making a pet out of her real husband. Quintessential cuck story. Heathcliff might as well be BBC. The Irish were basically like the blacks back then anyway if you'd rather see him that way. But the contemporary version of what Heathcliff is supposed to be imo is basically whatever is fetishized as like more masculine and alien for being unlike every other race at the time.

See the literal bull in picrel. That could be heathcliff if you want, now that foids are actually tired of normal men and would fuck bears. This isn't coming from nowhere. This story is just that miserably loony.

>>24827443
Libtards have redefined bootlicking as meaning not freely gobbling up whatever nonsense propaganda is being peddaled by multinational corporations and universities

>>24828224
>Women's greatest asset is our looks
t. tranny

Fairly few people, maybe one in six or so, have ever genuinely experienced romantic love.

>>24828531
It's not something I condone, retard. I also don't think men should valued according to their ROI.
Not a tranny and ywnbaw.

>>24828477
But Mr. Heathcliff forms a singular contrast to his abode and style of living. He is a

---> dark- skinned gipsy <---

in aspect, in dress and manners a gentleman: that is, as much a gentleman as many a country squire: rather slovenly, perhaps, yet not looking amiss with his negligence, because he has an erect and handsome figure; and rather morose.

>>24825306
>A man dealing with obsessive and unconsummated love his entire tortured life is the sort of thing women find romantic
I am under the impression that women think of me and judge me as a virgin, which of course is bad for a man. Are you sure you are not talking about hot men who are obsessive and with unconsummated love?

>>24827273
Exactly what you said before, but The Odyssey is not that. Odysseus bangs 2 other women while still married and gets away with it. One for almost 10 years too.

>>24828498
How do you know that you have genuinely self-authored any belief that you hold? The fact that you speak with such conviction suggests that you don't, but that you desperately must believe that you do.

>>24828616
What i said before:
"A desirable, heroic man even the gods want to fuck (and often do) with a hot, loyal wife at home? What else would a male romance look like?"
That's the Odyssey, bro. This conversation is going in circles because you insist on pretending you're smarter and wiser than everyone else. Bye bye Pajeet.

>>24827572
Tenant is ok. Feminist novel and it paints the protag as a prefect human. It comes across as a manual on how women should behave and how to treat women. Nowadays it's a given but in the Victorian age it was shocking, apparently. The fact that it doesn't consider material and financial wellbeing as a reason to love/marry someone is something that would stay true regardless of when it's read.

>>24828639
Nice psychoanalysis I guess but I'm not a strict partisan or ideologue which automatically puts me above most in that regard

>>24825332
> "gives you a boner"
That is called arousing.
Romantic means you long for it, you need it, you want to be with it, you want to know it on the intimate level.
>intimate means boner!
No, means an exclusive deep knowledge and understanding.

>>24828477
>a monster bait
Say it fast enough and it sounds like "masturbate". A monster bait novel. A masturbate novel.
Very subtle... not.

>>24828748
Most annoying and autistic person I've come across in a while. Indian?

>>24828777
Projecting? Seethe more, migger.

>>24827572
I thought Agnes Grey was very good. Well written and a tight storyline. I liked Tenant as well, but it's been a while and I need to go back to it. Right now I'm working my way through Villette, which I'm enjoying and would recommend (but look for an edition with translations for the French).

>>24828817
lol, that's a yes

>>24828725
That is commendable, but when you respond with such fervent derision to another view, you are implicitly exalting another dogma that is categorically the same as the partisan or ideological dogma that you consider to be below yourself. Can you see this?

>>24828611
Bitch, read the book, i shouldn't have to explain this to you. Heathcliff married another Linton. He wasn't a virgin, only his romance with Cathy went unconsummated. Women live in the tension, not the climax. And it's only appealing because it's fantasy.
So no, to answer your question, no one desires an undesirable man. Go to the gym.

>>24828935
Sanjay, time to log off

It is truly one of the most nerve wracking, distressing books I have ever read. The fact that it came from the mind of a young woman with no romantic or social experience outside of her own provincial family, who died shortly after it was published, makes it even more astonishing. It taps into incredible darkness. Everyone will tell you it’s not a frilly 19th-century romance and not to expect Jane Austen but you still will not be prepared.

>>24828868
>>24827572
What do I start with, Tenant or Agnes? I would prefer going from worst to best. And how is Villette for real? I tried reading Shirley last year and I felt suicidal boredom at around 135 pages.

>>24829293
>>24828707
>>24829293
Meant for these

>>24829293
Agnes Grey. It's pretty short and gives you an idea of Anne Brontës style.
I'm enjoying Villette. I can somewhat relate to Lucy Snowes attitude to life and her philosophy on how to survive it. But I can also see how to some (maybe younger, less relatable) it might seem a bit slow and boring.

>>24825220 (OP)
>Love triangle where woman is irresistibly drawn to the bad boy who beats her
>Women universally love it
It's harlequin romance-tier trash.

>>24828683
>This conversation is going in circles
But that was my first answer... And no, that's not The Odyssey. That's The Odyssey from the point of view of the woman, not the man.

>>24828946
>So no
>says exactly what I said
Huh? I said that dealing with obsession and unconsummated love is only hot if the man is already hot. You said that no, but that I should gp to the gym to become hot? How does that make any kind of sense?

would you rather have a woman have sex with you because she desires you or have a woman tell you i love you and mean it?

>>24830336
Heathcliff is repeatedly described as handsome. Go to school as well as the gym and you won't ask fucking stupid questions in the first place.

>>24830334
We really need an Indian containment board. Shit is getting out of hand.

>>24825220 (OP)
I liked it, but that's only because I'm a Yorkshireman and I liked the descriptions of the landscapes I know

>>24830515
Have you been to Haworth? I live in the south west, so a bit of a trek, but it's a place I would like to visit.

>>24830477
Yes, that exactly what I'm saying.
Here, little boy, I'll spoonfeed you the conversation:
Anon A: A man dealing with obsession and unconsumated love is hot!
Me: No it's not. Usually they are seen as virgins. Are you sure you are not talking about men who are already hot?
You: No! You are wrong! Heathcliff was already handsome! I'll be a contrarian faggot and say exactly the same as you but also will say that you are wrong! The undesirable will be undesirable! Get hot!
Me: Yes, that's exactly what I said. Those people are not hot because they are obsessive and have unconsummated love, but because they simply already are hot (Talking about Heathcliff)
You: Heatchliff IS HANDSOME!!! YOU ARE WRONG!!!
Do you see how my point is that being obsessive and witj unconsummated love is not hot per se, but rather that's just women looking at an already hot man and liking their bad traits just because he is hot? You saying that Heathcliff is handsome just proves my point, since most men with those traits are seen as undesirable but Heathcliff is desirable simply because he is hot. Anyways, I don't know why I'm explaining this to you if you already explained it yourself.

>>24830481
I'll explain it one more time, in hopes that you will understand.
What you described is the story from the point of view of Penelope. The story from the pov of Odysseus is not romantic at all, at least for men. Odysseus cheats for 10 years in a row with 2 different women.
So, no, The Odyssey is definitelly not the "Male romance", there is nothing romantic from the point of view of Odysseus. I agree that Penelope waiting 20 years for him and evading the suitors is romantic, yet that's not "male romance" at all since the protagonist (The one males are supposed to identify with) is the opposite of romantic.

>>24830823
Can you shut the fuck up? Heathcliff's intensity is considered romantic because his love is NOT unrequited, ONLY unconsummated. Yes, his handsomeness probably has something to do with Cathy loving him too.
No, your comparison to your own incel self is ridiculous both because Heathcliff is a fictional creation so different rules apply to him and also because you're an unlovable cretin. You're boring as well as ugly.
And you're stupid because you're placing far too much emphasis on me saying "no, you're not desirable" as if it were a complete refutation of what you were saying, rather than me disagreeing because the analysis is more complicated than your dimwitted "he's hot."
This board used to be the smart board.

>>24830838
NTA, and I agree that Odysseus is unworthy of Penelope, but don't you think there are men who, in their twisted view, see romance precisely as being able to cheat while their wife has unwavering fidelity?

>>24830603
No. I'd like to visit Haworth, and Top Withins too

>>24830904
Some men are definitelly like that, but as you said: it's a twisted view of romance, corrupted by lust I'd say.
>>24830861
>No, your comparison to your own incel self
First of all, you are the only one comparing myself with Heathcliff.
Second, don't move the goalpost to your caprice. The original discussion was about if being obsessive was hot or not. The answer, that we both agree on, is that it's not inherently attractive, but that it's only desirable when the person is handsome or desired by other traits, thus making obsession not inherently hot.
Saying that he is hot because it's not unrequited just sums to the point that we both have been making. You are not arguing why being obsessive is hot, but rather saying that it's hot because of other traits that are considered attractive. I don't get where you disagree with me.
>you're placing far too much emphasis on me saying "no, you're not desirable"
Third, I never emphasized or quoted that. In fact I can't even find where you got that from my comments. This conversation is truly useless.

>>24831286
Not reading this, loser. Keep whining. See where it gets you with women: ignored. As I shall be doing and should have in the first place.

>>24831286
da but based on this thread you keep trying to "win" conversations

it would help you to learn to walk away if you can't make a conversation productive just some advice

>>24830904
>Leaves a literal goddess for his wife despite being separated by a life-threatening journey
???

>>24831290
I always said we are both correct and saying the same thing. You are the only one whining.

>>24831309
You are right.. I should control myself better. Reading people say (and getting involved in the discussion) that unfaithfulness to your wife is romantic and that obsession is inherently desirable in a man just made me lose lots of time.

>>24831371
That poster said neither of those things though?

>>24831371
>A man dealing with obsessive and unconsummated love his entire tortured life is the sort of thing women find romantic, but men maybe not as much?
You're talking about this post right? To read this as "obsession is inherently desirable" seems like such a deliberate misreading that it's making me feel insane. Do you think if someone finds Heathcliff brooding and romantic, they have to find every stalker, serial killer, and kidnapper romantic as well? Are you autistic?
I can't follow the conversation about The Odyssey, but I can see why a man risking his life several times over to get back to his pining wife could be read as romantic. I don't find it romantic either myself.

>>24831318
He leaves after allowing himself to be sexually satisfied by her for 7 years without doing anything at all to even try to escape, by selectively turning off his "heroic" intellect and cunning. You think his choice was noble just because he shed tears of self-deception daily?

>>24831573
Hermes personally went to Calypso and told her she had to let Odysseus go. He literally couldn't leave

>opens thread to read about my favorite book
>sees retards arguing about The Odyssey instead

>>24831592
Maybe that's true, but he could've tried something. He could've looked for loopholes in divine commands, ways to get messages out, or leveraging Calypso's loneliness and resentment. What did he do? He simply resigned himself to divine machinations. That's your hero and faithful husband?

>>24831602
you just lost the argument bro

now bend over

I couldn't put it down after starting it. Great novel. The Ghost elements in it are fucking amazing.

Do I like this or Jane Eyre better, bros?

>Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest, as long as I am living! You said I killed you — haunt me, then! The murdered do haunt their murderers. I believe — I know that ghosts have wandered on earth. Be with me always — take any form — drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you! Oh, God! it is unutterable! I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!
Is this what tiktok girls are reading in their smut books? Because I could read stuff like this.

Joseph is the most based character in this

>>24831645
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

>>24831661
>grumpy old coot who doesn't give a shit about all the melodrama of the two families
>serves the household loyally for three generations
>grows blackcurrants in the garden
>literally ancient but regularly makes the walks to Gimmerton and Thrushcross Grange
>reads only the bible and his limited selection of theological works
>calls Catherine a witch
>thick Yorkshire dialect almost impossible for most people to comprehend
He's so based, best character hands down.

>>24831670
>>grumpy old coot who doesn't give a shit about all the melodrama of the two families
Wrong from the very start, he picked a side and then he spent years (decades even) complaining that his side lost.

>>24831596
Sir, this is a literature board. Take your femslop to booktok

>>24827441
'Rich daddy'

>Charlotte explained the circumstances surrounding her decision to take up Miss Wooler’s offer in a letter she wrote not long after to the poet Southey: ‘My father is a clergyman of limited … income, and I am the eldest of his children. He expended quite as much in my education as he could afford in justice to the rest. I thought it therefore my duty, when I left school, to become a governess.’ To her friend Ellen Nussey Charlotte confided a further consideration — Branwell was to be sent to London, at great expense to his father and aunt, to train for a career as artist. ‘Papa [will] have enough to do with his limited income,’ Charlotte wrote, ‘should Branwell be placed at the Royal Academy.’

>Emily’s decision to accompany Charlotte to Roe Head was almost certainly influenced by painful consciousness of the ‘burden’ she represented to her father as a dependent young......


'Male publishers'

>By the summer of 1846, Agnes Grey, Wuthering Heights and The Professor were ready to be sent out into the world, their authors rather ambiguously disguised under the pseudonyms Acton, Ellis and Currer Bell. Charlotte obtained a list of publishers and ‘perseveringly obtruded’ the manuscripts upon various editors. When the trio failed to meet with a sympathetic reading at half a dozen houses, Charlotte adopted the practice of neatly crossing out the name of the latest source of rejection — with what motive one can only imagine — and sending on what must have been an increasingly dog-eared specimen to the next address, bearing its history of failure on the wrapper.
>Finally, a Mr Newby, of Messrs Thomas Cautley Newby, 72 Mortimer Street, Cavendish Square, sent a letter offering to publish the novels of Acton and Ellis Bell, but declining Currer Bell’s The Professor. He requested, however, that the authors of Agnes Grey and Wuthering Heights contribute £50 toward the expenses of publication, to be returned once the sales had reimbursed the publisher for his outlays. The niggardly terms were not what Emily and Anne had hoped for, but as the authors of first novels rejected by a number of publishers, they were hardly in a position to argue for better.


'Male editors'

>In the meantime, the dilatory Newby awakened to the fact that he was in possession of a manuscript whose authors might well be connected with the author of the season's literary sensation, Jane Eyre. He sped into publication and by mid-December Emily and Anne had their first copies. Wuthering Heights occupied two volumes of a claret-coloured set, and Agnes Grey the third. The girls were horrified to find that the multitude of printers' errors they had corrected in proof had returned in the finished copies. 'The orthography and punctuation of the books,' Charlotte remarked to her publisher, 'are mortifying to a degree.'

>male ghost writers
delusional trooncel

>>24831449
I am going to learn my lesson and make my last reply: I spoonfed you the whole conversation and you still don't understand even the beginning. I started by saying that it wasn't romantic, the rest (What you call a missreading) came due to you comparing myself to Heathcliff.

The idea that the characters can recall and remember lengthy conversations that took place years ago verbatim seemed insanely preposterous and ludicrous to me, until I remembered the memoirs I've read of people from the time. It seemed they had steel memory back then, and also preserved a lot of casual conversation in writing, and also stored and preserved letters. Completely different timelines and mode of living.

Might read this next. Or, after the 31st at least.

>>24832542
I'm a different anon so I didn't follow the whole conversation, but you're extrapolating one comment about Heathcliff to all men. I agree with that poster that you're an absolute retard fucking up the thread with your retardation. You should read more books and your comprehension will improve over time.

>>24828611
>>24832542
you inserted yourself into the conversation, little buddy.

>>24827294
Claptrap.

>>24825319
>>24827294
>>24828611
>>24827443
>>24828639
Is this all the same poster? Because if so
>inb4 school shooter

>>24830190
Isn't Edgar actually the one who she is irresistibly drawn to? To say she's drawn to Heathcliff is like saying the fish is drawn to the ocean.

>>24833494
When Heathcliff comes back into the picture she declares she will always love him. It's as trite as trite can be, Edgar is the stable boring male who society wishes her to be with, but Heathcliff is the dangerous abusive bad boy that her emotions and passions drive her towards. It is the essence of almost every love triangle in women's literature and it speaks to the deep desire within women to commit infidelity when coupled with an inferior male (as judged by primitive instinct) to secure better genes for their offspring, while getting the inferior male to support them, thus cucking the inferior male literally for their life. Rape and use of force by the attractive male is often the culmination of this fantasy, thus enacting the exact scenario wished for but excusing the woman of any moral culpability and adding a dimension of delicious victim hood to the narrative which also titillates women.

>>24833828
Isn't Heathcliff, by any objective measure, a disastrous and destructive choice? The text doesn't even definitively state whether he or Edgar is more physically attractive, so how could he have "better genes"? If you are correct, shouldn't humanity have gone extinct already?
Although, even if I don't agree with the analysis, I do agree that the frequency of rape fantasies in female "literature" is deeply unsettling.

I read it. I think it's effectively the same as all the other "romance" lit on the shelves. Uninteresting bitch woman is angstily torn between the rich, noble, stable but boring man and the big, dark, exciting brute, both of which are infinitely devoted to her. Yeah, it was better written than a lot of other stuff, but there was nothing special to it. Standard pornography. You can get the same thing out of online fanfiction, really. The praise and esteem I see it get is blackpilling. If I were to make an incel reading list, I'd put it at the top.

>>24833866
>The text doesn't even definitively state whether he or Edgar is more physically attractive
it does. did you read some kind of abridged version? Heathcliff is mentioned as blooming into a dark kind of attractiveness in adulthood, having a rugged, broad build and being taller than Edgar Linton. Linton men on the other hand are consistently described as being effeminate and youthful-looking.

>>24834256
Your interpretation is, by definition, not definitive. You are imposing your view of male attractiveness on the entire female gender. The text never explicitly states that Catherine finds either one more attractive than the other, and there is also no evidence that Emily intended such a comparison.

>>24834291
Heathcliff, with his rugged build and dark skin, is literally like the female fetish fantasy poised next to the pasty small men of the time. This is not my view, it's how he's presented in the novel you never red.

>>24834318
You are still missing my point. Thinking that women prefer a "tall, athletic, and well-formed" man to a "slender and youth-like" one is YOUR own projection. Why do you even have such strong opinions on male attractiveness? I personally spent most of my imagination on the appearances of Catherine, Isabella, and young Cathy. Were you primarily occupied by the men?

>>24834333
I don't care about your goalpost shifting nonsense, Heathcliff is definitively stated as being handsome in the story and tall compared to Edgar. The only one here trying to impose 'his view' is you. Dismissed.

>>24834345
Are you seriously so socially programmed that you can't even conceive of what I'm saying? That's... sad.

>>24834349
Is this the same incel whining about The Odyssey and obsession? Why do you keep bringing up "social programming"?
It's pretty obvious if you read the book that Cathy pines for Heathcliff, but marries Edgar because he's the social better. She calls Heathcliff her soulmate.
There is something seriously wrong with you. It's like you're an alien trying to explain human emotions to humans.

The entire book is NTR fodder. Revolutionary in the time it was written but below generic today.
FMC fools around then settles for beta provider. Chad returns and FMC is mindbroken in his presence.

>>24834617
Can you please speak like a person and not like a retard?

>>24828960
>mind of a young woman with no romantic or social experience
She likely fooled around.

>>24834624
>FMC fools around then settles for beta provider. Chad returns and FMC is mindbroken in his presence.

>>24825220 (OP)
>Woman writer
Because its trash. Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?

>>24834634
Wasn't there an anecdote about how her intimate scenes were ridiculous and had to be cut because she was very obviously ignorant of sex? Or am I confusing her with someone else?

>>24825220 (OP)
I remember being filtered on a first read, but I have found memories of it thinking back. If anything, I wish it was MORE romantic because there’s about one scene in the entire novel where Cathy shows genuine affection for Heathcliff, which I think undercuts the idea of it being this epic, doomed romance.

It’s basically just a proto-modernist tale about a dysfunctional and abusive family. Kind of amazing it was written in the 19th century when it feels like something that was written in the 1920s-30s.

>>24834663
The sisters and their social circle self-censored because their father was a holy man. But it's clear they've had courtships.

>>24834291
I'd say the general response of female readership refutes your post soundly.

>>24834333
Are you trolling? Your posts read as satire. "Well, Ashkctually, women preferring tall, dark, handsome, strong men is just your projection." Comical. Have you ever met a woman? Do you live under a rock?

>>24834617
>>24834640
Correct. It's been the standard of chick lit love triangles ever since, and has unironically led to the downfall of gender relations.

>>24834663
literature from the time had no sex scenes, broski. Especially coming from the ultra-prudent British polite society. Emily almost definitely died a virgin like 99% of people who died unmarried, the silly conjectures in this thread have no bearing on the reality of culture at the time.

>>24834926
Oh yeah, you're right. I have a pretty clear memory of reading that though, so I guess I did confuse it.

>>24834771
It's prescient of the modern romance novels, shocking how many women desire Cathy/Heathcliff's "relationship".

>>24835216
What's there not to desire? she gets him and he gets her, she wanted to marry him inspite the social disparity between the two, but he was stubborn and selective about what he wanted to hear so he fucked off randomly and returned many years later with a lot of wealth on his back. She shared his suffering when they were both young, overlooked the fact that he is a weird gypsy-passing orhpan that was adopted by Earnshaw senior and his destitution compared to Linton. I think the relationship and the characters are highly nuanced which makes this novel great. Cathy is also presented as a dumb airheaded bitch, something her daughter inherited.

>>24835233
>selective about what he wanted to hear
As if any context can justify someone saying that you degrade them.

>>24835267
Well, he missed some crucial information right afterwards, that even inspite of this she desired him. But the truth is the truth, especially for the time. She's an heiress to old class and he's basically an adopted gypsy. Her marriage to him would degrade her, but she still desired it. I think there's silver lining in that if women take to this relationship, because it means material wealth (Which Edgar had) is not all to them, but ultimately in reality most women just entertain and humor the chad, they don't want lasting love with him since he doesn't have a lot of money they can spend, so these romances are just a fictional escape.

>>24825220 (OP)
i don't read roasties so i couldn't tell you

>>24834680
I'm not sure. What little we know about Emily suggests she was never in any romantic relationship. Charlotte was very self-conscious about her looks and, in company, often very shy (though she did have two marriage proposals early on, experienced unrequited love and later real love and marriage). Anne is said to have had an attraction to William Weightman, but I don't think they ever courted. But the reality is – especially regarding Anne and Emily – we just don't know.

>>24834672
>when it feels like something that was written in the 1920s-30s
nah this certainly doesn’t feel like a post-dadaist novel lol
(Locus Solus was published in 1914 btw haha)
not any more modern narration-wise than a Stendhal, on the contrary

>>24835628
Emily wouldn't have been able to write this if she wasn't a virgin.

Jesus faggots, I just wanted to know if I should read OP's pic related book.
Wuthering Heights has some rhyme in the title that I like, and the cover looks good, that alone interests me along with the fact that it's maybe dark love or something. But isn't even being discussed.

N-bomb:
everyone here is a nigger

>>24837660
Read it.

>>24837660
You can't really go wrong with the Brontes, except maybe The Professor and Shirley.

Recently finished this (spoilers here after). It made me feel and think more about teenage passion than true love. It’s burns with so much intensity and fire that it explodes and ultimately dies, burning everyone and everything around it. The great arch of the book and what ultimately made it astounding to me was Heathcliff not being able to let go of it and choosing to be haunted by it. When he decides to break the cycle and die it’s oddly heroic, despite how evil he is.

>>24839495
Did he really "break the cycle"? Wasn't his death the final act of obsession, not liberation?

>>24839507
I meant more in the sense of the generational abuse. Just before he dies he accepts that he needs to let the next generation live on. But yeah there is a duality to it that he can’t personally move and is ultimately killed by his obsession. I’m still processing it all though if I’m being honest it’s a great book and I’m still thinking about it from time to time

>>24827496
Faggot retard.

Wuthering Heights is just Victorian Twilight. No literary value at all.

>>24825220 (OP)
Most boys have obsessed over a bitch when they were in jr high. It's not a romantic experience they fondly remember. So boys dont root for Heathcliff as he obsesses over some bitch. They see Heathcliff as a retarded beta orbiter and cringe. Chasing women is a thing of the past now. Boys dont waste time trying to court girls who have already rejected them.

>>24830352
Sex.

>>24827268
Both. You will slip into your robe with a cup of hot cocoa in front of the fireplace as you load your pistol

>>24827941
Heathcliff was tormented by her throughout and she only stopped when he relented

>>24839804
Read the book and then tell me I'm a faggot for seeing it.

>>24840044
that's an interesting interpretation actually.

>>24825220 (OP)
/lit/ hates women authors

>>24825319
That IS romantic. I fimd that romance for man is proportionally inverted. A woman wants the lovey-dovey, treating her like a princess mating dance bs upfront and the freaky sex on the back end. While a man wants to fuck a lot of beautiful women up front with a loyal queen by his side at home on the back end. I don't mean back end in a bad way, a good wife is worth a thousand thots's weight in gold but it's just that men like adventure with domestic security waiting for them. Just my two cents

>>24825306
>I don't know what men find romantic

A girl who loves me for who I really am and not just because I look a certain way or I have a certain status and I'm "good enough" until somebody better comes along.

To me, it would be romantic if a girl would rather be with me than a guy who is taller and more handsome and comes from a higher social strata and has more money and all the rest of the "things" that make men "attractive" to "women."

Sometimes I think women would rather buy a man at a store or order him out of a catalog. I notice now that women call it "emotional labor" to have to pretend to care about a guy they're supposedly "in love" with.

I don't think that's very romantic. I don't know whence cometh this notion that women are romantic and men are not. In my opinion, women find romantic men unattractive. If a guy tries to be romantic, that just requires more "emotional labor" from them to have to pretend they appreciate it.

>>24828178
>I told my English Lit teacher this and she kicked me out of the classroom
There is no way teachers like this actually exist

>>24825220 (OP)
I honestly didn't understand it at all. The whole thing felt like the prologue to another story, I kept waiting for the actual story to start and it just ended. Most I got out of it was to never trust the Welsh.

>>24844858
t. probably read only volume 1

>>24845528
You yanking my chain?

>>24847543
Everything with the first generation (Heathcliff, Catherine 1, Hindley and Edgar) is just the prologue. The movies stop here because moviemakers think the story is about romance.

The meaningful meat of the story is the second generation (Heathcliff's son, Catherine 1's daughter, Hindley's son). The book's second half is about the hollow and unsatisfying nature of revenge, and how only acceptance and letting go can set you free.

If all you remember is romance then you only got the first volume.

>>24847581
>only acceptance and letting go can set you free
That's just your interpretation. I thought that Heathcliff was the truest Romantic in the entire movement, even after his fated demise.

>>24843302
>I notice now that women call it "emotional labor" to have to pretend to care about a guy they're supposedly "in love" with.
Yeah, any time a term gets introduced to the mainstream, it gets stretched past the point of meaning anything useful.
"Emotional labor" used to mean having to suppress or manage emotions to do your job - labor being part of the term, exchange for a wage was part of its definition. Customers always screaming at you? Resist the urge to retaliate. Nurse or doctor to a dying child? Have to compartmentalize that. Have something tragic going on at home? Don't let it get in the way of your paperwork.
Now it can just mean being a good spouse, parent, or friend even when you don't want to!
Anyway, I hear you, anon. Academia was a mistake. Social media was a mistake.