Impact: Wuthering Heights

The Woman Behind the Wind

Emily Brontë was born in 1818 in Yorkshire, the fourth of six children in a family that had already been marked by loss — her mother died when Emily was three. The family eventually settled in Haworth, a mill town perched on the edge of the moors, and the moors became everything to Emily. She walked them daily, in weather that would have kept most people indoors. By the accounts of those who knew her, she was intensely private, almost hostile to the outside world, and most alive when she was alone on the hillside.

She had almost no formal education and almost no experience of life beyond Haworth. A brief stint at boarding school ended when she became physically ill from homesickness. A longer attempt to study in Brussels with her sister Charlotte in 1842 produced brilliant academic results and, reportedly, a kind of spiritual crisis. She came home and stayed. The world she built in fiction was not the world she had seen — it was the world she had imagined from those long walks in wind and rain, the one that existed just past the treeline, where the rules of polite society didn't reach.

What makes this stranger still: Emily Brontë wrote poetry first, and she wrote it brilliantly. When Charlotte accidentally discovered her sister's private notebook of poems in 1845, she described the verse as something unlike anything she had read — not like the poetry of a woman, she said (meaning it as a compliment by the standards of the time), but something wilder and more austere. The poems were eventually published, to modest notice. The novel followed. Emily died before anyone truly understood what she had made.

A Spectacular Misreading

Wuthering Heights was published in December 1847, a month after Charlotte's Jane Eyre appeared to enormous acclaim. The contrast was brutal. Charlotte's book was praised as passionate but moral, exciting but safe. Emily's was called something else entirely. One reviewer wrote that it was 'a compound of vulgar depravity and unnatural horrors.' Another complained that the author seemed to take pleasure in depicting cruelty without condemning it. The book sold poorly. The mystery of who had written it — published under the pseudonym Ellis Bell — generated more interest than the book itself.

The critics were not entirely wrong about what they were reading. Wuthering Heights is genuinely uncomfortable. Heathcliff is not a misunderstood romantic hero in the mold the era preferred — he is a man who systematically destroys two families across two generations, who hangs a dog, who digs up a corpse, who treats the people around him as instruments of revenge without a flicker of redemption. The novel does not correct him. It does not punish him in the way Victorian fiction was supposed to punish its villains. It simply watches him, with the cold attention of a woman who has spent years watching storms move across open ground.

What the critics missed — what it would take decades to see clearly — is that the discomfort is the point. Brontë was not failing to write a proper Victorian novel. She was writing something that had no genre yet.

The Architecture of the Storm

Open Wuthering Heights and the first thing you notice is how carefully it refuses to give you a straight line. The story is told by Lockwood, a fussy, unreliable narrator from the city who has rented Thrushcross Grange from the brooding Heathcliff and almost immediately stumbles into a situation he cannot understand. Within a few chapters, Lockwood passes the narration to Nelly Dean, a housekeeper who has witnessed everything and whose own biases and blind spots shape everything she reports. The actual story of Catherine and Heathcliff arrives as a story within a story, already filtered, already slightly wrong.

That opening chapter from the book is a masterclass in atmosphere built from specific detail. Brontë doesn't tell you Wuthering Heights is forbidding — she shows you the 'excessive slant of a few stunted firs,' the 'gaunt thorns all stretching their limbs one way, as if craving alms of the sun,' the date '1500' carved above the door beside the name 'Hareton Earnshaw.' The house has a history before the novel begins. The carved name above the door will matter enormously by the final pages. Nothing in Wuthering Heights is accidental.

The double-narrator structure was unusual enough in 1847 to confuse readers. It still confuses some readers today. But it does something that a straightforward third-person narration could never do: it keeps Catherine and Heathcliff permanently at a distance, always described, never quite present, always more mythic than the fumbling real people around them. By the time you understand what happened between them, you are understanding it the way you understand something from a dream — with total emotional clarity and incomplete factual information.

What the Book Is Actually About

It is tempting, and not entirely wrong, to call Wuthering Heights a love story. The relationship between Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff — the foundling boy brought to the Heights by her father, the wild childhood companion, the man she chooses not to marry and cannot stop loving — is one of the most intense relationships in fiction. 'He's more myself than I am,' Catherine says. 'Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.' This is not the language of romance. It is the language of identity.

But the novel is equally about class, and specifically about what happens when you take a child of uncertain origin and let him be raised as almost-but-not-quite an equal, and then strip that status away. Heathcliff's revenge plot — which occupies the entire second half of the book — is not irrational cruelty. It is a systematic attempt to acquire, by legal and financial means, every property and inheritance that was denied him. He wins. He gets everything. And then, having won, he finds that winning is empty. The thing he wanted was not land. It was Catherine, and Catherine is dead.

Brontë was also writing about something harder to name: the way some people are simply not made for the compromises that society requires. Catherine marries Edgar Linton because he is wealthy and gentle and the world makes sense when he is in it. She dies of it — literally, in the novel's logic, she wastes away from the contradiction of being married to civilization while belonging, in some essential way, to the moors. This is not a critique of Edgar. It is a critique of a world that offers no third option.

How It Became Canon

The rehabilitation of Wuthering Heights was slow and largely posthumous. Charlotte Brontë, who outlived her sister by six years, did much of the early work — writing a preface for the 1850 second edition that framed Emily as a tragic untutored genius, a 'child of the moors' who had produced something raw and powerful but imperfectly controlled. This framing was well-intentioned and somewhat condescending, and it stuck for longer than it should have. For much of the nineteenth century, the book was read as an interesting failure: powerful in places, but lacking the moral architecture that serious fiction was supposed to provide.

The twentieth century changed everything. The Modernists, who were in the business of dismantling exactly the moral architecture the Victorians had demanded, found Wuthering Heights suddenly legible. Virginia Woolf wrote about it admiringly. Later, feminist critics found in Catherine Earnshaw a portrait of what it costs a woman to be forced to choose between passion and survival. Postcolonial critics began to take seriously the question of Heathcliff's origin — he is described as 'dark-skinned' and picked up off the streets of Liverpool, England's primary slave-trade port, and the novel's silences around his race and background began to look less like carelessness and more like deliberate ambiguity.

By the end of the twentieth century, Wuthering Heights had become one of those books that every generation reads differently — not because the book changes, but because the questions readers bring to it keep evolving.

The Cultural Footprint

Few novels have generated more adaptations, and fewer still have survived them so intact. There have been at least seven major film versions, including a celebrated 1939 Hollywood production with Laurence Olivier as Heathcliff — a film so committed to the romantic mythology that it softens the second half of the novel almost entirely out of existence. There have been stage productions, operas, a 1978 Kate Bush song that introduced the novel to an entire generation of people who had never opened it (and whose opening shriek, 'Heathcliff, it's me, Cathy,' may be the most famous misquotation in pop music history — Catherine never actually says that).

The novel has influenced writers as varied as Sylvia Plath, who identified obsessively with Catherine, and Daphne du Maurier, whose Rebecca is essentially Wuthering Heights rearranged around a different kind of haunting. The 'dark brooding hero with a secret' — the template that runs from Rochester in Jane Eyre through Heathcliff to Edward Cullen in Twilight and beyond — owes a direct structural debt to Brontë's creation, though most of those later versions drain away the violence and the class politics and keep only the cheekbones.

What survives every adaptation is the landscape. Haworth and the surrounding moors have become a literary pilgrimage site. Hundreds of thousands of people visit every year, walking paths Emily Brontë walked, looking for something the novel promises and the adaptations never quite deliver: the actual feeling of standing somewhere the wind has permanent authority over everything.

Why It Still Matters

Reading Wuthering Heights today, what strikes you first is how modern the discomfort feels. We have grown used to fiction that refuses to redeem its complicated characters, that presents cruelty as cruelty without the consolation of a moral lesson. Heathcliff would fit without adjustment into contemporary literary fiction. What still surprises is the precision of the emotional observation — Brontë's understanding of how love and rage and grief are not separate things but the same energy moving in different directions.

The novel is also genuinely funny in places, in the dark, dry way that extreme human stubbornness becomes funny when observed from a slight distance. Lockwood's baffled narration, Joseph's impenetrable Yorkshire dialect, the sheer pig-headed determination of nearly every character to make the worst available choice — there is a mordant comedy running under the tragedy that most adaptations miss entirely.

What Brontë understood, writing in isolation on the edge of the moors, was something it took the rest of literature decades to catch up to: that the most civilized settings can contain the most savage feelings, that houses and inheritances and marriage contracts are just weather systems with better paperwork, and that some people are simply made of weather. Wuthering Heights is the proof.

Further Reading & Resources

Related Works in Our Library