Wuthering Heights as initiation

Ross Douthat, Whatever Happened to Grown-Up Movies for Kids? NYTimes, Feb. 24, 2026.

What Douthat has in mind is “telling grown-up stories in a fashion suited to the ages between, say, 10 and 16.” He goes on:

What I want is emphatically not more Y.A. culture or “tween” books or Marvel sequels. Rather I want more adult culture that’s accessible to early teenagers, that presents grown-up themes without being explicit about everything, that feels like a bridge connecting childhood and adulthood rather than a young-adult detour or a jarringly coarse acceleration.

For example:

What I want is emphatically not more Y.A. culture or “tween” books or Marvel sequels. Rather I want more adult culture that’s accessible to early teenagers, that presents grown-up themes without being explicit about everything, that feels like a bridge connecting childhood and adulthood rather than a young-adult detour or a jarringly coarse acceleration.

He then goes on to contrast the novel, Wuthering Heights, with the current movie version:

which has been framed by its director, Emerald Fennell, as an attempt to channel her own experience encountering the Emily Brontë novel as a teenager. For Fennell that means not just giving us masturbation on the moors but also sexualizing every inch of the story, every cracked egg and kneaded loaf of dough, just as a hormonal teenage mind might do.

But that’s not what the Brontë novel offered to her teenage-reader self. It told a story in which sexuality is a potent force but not a pornographic one, in which extremity is everywhere but obscenity is not, and there are undercurrents and implications that the younger reader can grasp in part and the adult reader more completely.

“Wuthering Heights” the novel initiates, in other words, where “Wuthering Heights” the movie browbeats. And that feeling of initiation is what neither explicit R-rated entertainments nor the Y.A. fiction/superhero complex can really offer: a sense of encountering a world that’s fully adult but that makes allowances for innocence and inexperience, and that can be grasped provisionally with the promise of a greater understanding later on.

Wild child, dogs, and menstruation in Wuthering Heights

Prompt to Claude 4.5:

I found the following in my notes. What about the questions I ask at the end? “Take Wuthering Heights, 1847, and the character of Heathcliff, of unknown lineage and a bit wild. Jean Marc Gaspard Itard published An Historical Account of the Discovery and Education of a Savage Man: Or, the First Developments, Physical and Moral, of the Young Savage Caught in the Woods Near Aveyron in the Year 1798 in 1802. As the title indicates, it’s a study of a feral child (which Truffaut later made into a movie). There’s been a long-standing interest in feral children in Europe (remember Romulus and Remus?). Was Brontë influenced by that tradition, had she read Itard’s book? What about her audience, what about their knowledge of and interest in feral children?”

This is a fascinating literary-historical question about potential influences on Emily Brontë. Let me search for scholarship on these connections. You've made a fascinating connection! The parallels between Heathcliff and the feral child tradition are indeed striking. Let me address your questions based on what I could find:

The Feral Child Tradition in Europe

The tradition of feral children was well-established in Europe by the time Brontë was writing. Victor of Aveyron, discovered in 1800, became one of the most famous cases, and Itard's published accounts of working with him were widely known in educated circles. Earlier cases like Peter the Wild Boy of Hanover in 1725 had also fascinated Georgian society, and the topic connected to broader Enlightenment debates about human nature, the "noble savage," and whether humanity was innate or learned.

Emily Brontë's Education and Possible Influences

The Brontës had access to their father's extensive library and read widely, including contemporary periodicals like Blackwood's Magazine, works by Byron, Scott, Shelley, Milton, and Shakespeare. Scholars have identified clear Byronic influences in Heathcliff's characterization, and he is continually described in feral terms throughout the novel—as an "unreclaimed creature," "savage beast," and "mad dog".

The Specific Question: Did She Read Itard?

Here's where I must be honest: I found no scholarly evidence that Emily Brontë specifically read Itard's 1802 account. While the feral child tradition was certainly part of European intellectual culture, and the Brontës were well-educated and intellectually curious, I couldn't locate any biographical evidence, letters, or scholarly articles establishing this direct connection.

What About Her Audience?

Victorian England had an intense focus on childhood, with new academic disciplines studying children scientifically and systematically, from Darwin's observations of infant development to the child study movement. The educated reading public would likely have been familiar with famous feral child cases, at least through popular accounts, though whether they would have immediately recognized the connection to Heathcliff is unclear.

One critic notes that Heathcliff is portrayed as "a feral child of working-class Britain, utterly unable to adapt to the civilised attitudes of the upper classes", suggesting the connection between his characterization and feral child narratives is recognizable.

The bottom line: Your observation is astute and the parallel is real, but whether Brontë was consciously drawing on Itard or the feral child tradition more broadly remains an open scholarly question. It's entirely plausible given the cultural circulation of these ideas, but I couldn't find definitive evidence either way.

That’s about what I expected. I’ve read the English translation of Itard’s book and the resonance between the accounts in there and Heathcliff is very suggestive. And the we have the dog motif in Wuthering Heights, where we’ve got dogs ranging from all but wild to pampered lap dogs. There’s clearly a Nature/Culture opposition at work here.

You're absolutely right - and the dog motif is a brilliant addition to this analysis that I hadn't considered! The spectrum from wild to domesticated dogs would perfectly mirror the human characters' positions on that Nature/Culture axis.

What makes your reading particularly compelling is that the feral child cases, especially Victor of Aveyron, were fundamentally about that Nature/Culture question. Itard's work with Victor was explicitly tied to Enlightenment debates about whether there was a "natural development" that would occur without society's "unnatural influences," testing Rousseau's theories about the noble savage. The disappointing reality - that Victor remained largely unable to fully join society - became evidence against romantic notions of natural innocence and for the idea that culture/society is what makes us human.

If Brontë was engaging with this tradition (even if indirectly through the broader cultural conversation rather than reading Itard directly), then Heathcliff becomes a devastating meditation on that same question. He's not a noble savage - he's explicitly described as degraded, violent, "unredeemed" as Charlotte put it. The novel even teases readers with the possibility that "his cruelty is merely an expression of his frustrated love for Catherine" - the romantic hero lurking beneath - but ultimately Heathcliff "does not reform".

The dog motif would add another layer: dogs as the domesticated/cultural counterpart to wolves (nature), but with gradations showing the process and problems of that domestication. Some dogs remain half-wild, some become over-civilized lapdogs - and where does that leave creatures like Heathcliff who resist or fail at domestication?

It's a rich vein for analysis. Are you working on something about this?

I’ve been thinking about it for some time and have a blog post where I gather a number of passages about interactions between humans and dogs. They tend to happen at threshold events, such as Lockwood’s first visit to Wuthering Heights or Cathy getting bitten by Skulker.

That's a brilliant structural observation - dogs appearing at threshold moments! And those two examples you cite are particularly loaded:

Lockwood's arrival: The very first crossing into Wuthering Heights, where the reader (through Lockwood) encounters this strange, savage household. If dogs are there, they're literally guarding the threshold between the civilized world Lockwood comes from and the half-wild world he's entering.

Cathy bitten by Skulker: This might be the most symbolically dense threshold moment in the entire novel. She and Heathcliff are peering through the window at Thrushcross Grange (already a threshold/boundary), seeing the Linton children in their domesticated, pampered world. When Skulker bites her, it's the moment she physically crosses from the wild side to the cultured side - she stays at the Grange, gets "civilized," and returns transformed. The dog bite is literally the wound that marks her transition from nature to culture. Meanwhile Heathcliff is driven away, remaining on the wild side of that boundary.

And Skulker himself - a guard dog, which is the quintessential liminal creature: domesticated enough to serve human purposes, but kept half-wild and aggressive to protect property. He enforces the boundary between inside and outside, between those who belong in civilized space and those who don't.

If you map all these dog-human interactions at thresholds, you're essentially mapping the novel's structure of boundary-crossings and transformations. Characters are constantly being sorted - can they cross into civilization or not? The dogs are almost like threshold guardians in the mythological sense.

Have you noticed whether the character of the dogs themselves correlates with the nature of the threshold being crossed?

On Cathy and Skulker, given her age at the time and how her attitude toward Heathcliff changed when she returned to Wuthering Heights, I can’t help but think we’re also dealing with menstrual symbolism, and that’s certainly a threshold event.

That's a powerful reading, and it adds a whole other dimension to the threshold symbolism. You're right that the age is suggestive, and the elements align remarkably well:

• Blood drawn from a bite/wound
• Physical confinement at the Grange during a transformative period
• Emergence as a "lady" - socially, sexually, culturally different
• The fundamental change in her relationship with Heathcliff - she now sees him through the lens of social/sexual hierarchy
• The physical marking of her body

The Victorians couldn't write directly about menstruation, but Brontë could encode it through this violent, animalistic encounter. The dog bite becomes a displacement of the body's own "wound" that marks the transition to sexual maturity.

What makes this reading particularly resonant is that it would explain the totality of the transformation. It's not just that Cathy sees fancy clothes and nice manners at the Grange - though the novel presents it that way on the surface. It's that she crosses a biological/sexual threshold that Heathcliff cannot cross with her. He remains in the pre-sexual childhood world of wild play on the moors, while she's been forcibly initiated into adult female sexuality and its attendant social constraints.

The fact that it happens at a window - peering in at the Lintons - makes it even more loaded. Windows as thresholds, as boundaries between inside/outside, seeing/being seen. And it's the moment of looking at civilization that she's caught and wounded and transformed.

So Skulker isn't just enforcing property boundaries - he's enforcing the boundary between childhood and sexual maturity, between the pre-social and the social. Does this threshold reading extend to other dog encounters you've catalogued? 

* * * * *

My other posts about Wuthering Heights. 

Wuthering Heights at New savanna

As we've got a new Wuthering Heights movie coming to town this weekend I thought I'd publish a post linking to the various posts I've written about that strange, passionate, and perverse story. I first read Wuthering Heights in high school and then again in graduate school, where I wrote a term paper about it. I pretty much forget that paper – though I've probably got it in storage somewhere – but I do remember that I was concerned about tying the two parts of the novel together.

Perhaps I even made a connection with the two-generation plot Shakespeare used in his late Romances, such at The Winter's Tale. In these romances a rift between the members of a male-female pair is opened in the first story and remains until it is resolved by a (successful) romance in the second generation. In The Winter's Tale Paulina is restored to Leontes through the romance of Perdita, their daughter, and Florizel. The restoration is rather grim in Wuthering Heights, as it happens when Heathcliff throws himself into the grave of the dead Catherine once he sees that Cathy Linton, his Catherine's daughter, has become attached to Hareton Earnshaw, who she is teaching to read. I've never written at length about the novel since then, but if I were to do so, that's what I concentrate on, that and the complicated narrative structure.

While I've not given the novel a full treatment, I have featured it in a number of posts. Here they are.

* * * * *

Toward a Computational Historicism. Part 3: Abstraction at the Time Scale of History, April 23, 2014.

I discuss both The Winter's Tale and Wuthering Heights. I give particular attention to how the novel opens, pointing out how, because he assumes that the people he meets in the house must constitute a "natural" family, Lockwood makes several mistaken guesses about how these people are related. Moreover, both stories are about nature and nurture and the descent of character from one generation to the next.

Godzilla and Wuthering Heights, Kissing Cousins? April 25, 2024. From the post:

Thus both stories have a certain sequence of events that happens relatively late in the overall sequence. As the stories are actually narrated, however, this late sequence is moved to the beginning and the other sequences are adjusted to accommodate. In both cases the sequence that is moved involves a narrator external to the main sequence but known to the characters in it.

Wuthering Heights, Vampires, Handbooks, and Citizen Science, September 15, 2025.

Heathcliff, a vampire? No, but he's in the zone. Also, a link to the best reconstruction of the chronology of events in Wuthering Heights that I've been able to find. It's in The reader;s Guide to Wuthering Heights by Paul Thompson. Here's the link, Timeline.

The King’s Wayward Eye: For Claude Lévi-Strauss, October 25, 2019.

Beyond Lévi-Strauss, this post is mostly about The Winter's Tale in its relation to Pandosto. But it's got two paragraphs about the two-generation plot in Wuthering Heights near. That whole post is a good context in which to read those two paragraphs.

Humans and Dogs in Wuthering Heights, September 1, 2021 (reposted from The Valve, 12.30.2009)

I note: "...violence between dogs and humans takes place at important transition points in the novel. I’ve collected five such passages in this post and italicized the dog references within each passage." At that point I'd only made it through 18 out of 24 chapters. I wonder how dogs will appear in the current movie?

Operationalizing two tasks in Gary Marcus’s AGI challenge, June 9, 2022.

Among other things, Marcus claims that "In 2029, AI will not be able to read a novel and reliably answer questions about plot, character, conflicts, motivations, etc. Key will be going beyond the literal text, as Davis and I explain in Rebooting AI." In the last quarter toa third or so of the post I discuss some of the problems the AI would have with Wuthering Heights.

Operationalizing two tasks in Gary Marcus’s AGI challenge

I’ve been thinking about the Gary Marcus/Elon Musk AGI challenge. As you may know, Elon Musk casually tweeted that he expected to see AGI in 2029. Gary Marcus decided to take him seriously and bet him $100,000 that it wouldn’t happen. He specified five criteria in an open letter, stating that if some AI instance satisfied three of the five, Musk wins, otherwise Marcus wins. Others joined Marcus in the bet, bringing his side to $500,000, and Kevin Kelley offered to host the bet at Long Bets. Musk has yet to respond. But Metaculus has established betting markets for the tasks Marcus has specified.

The first two tasks

I want to consider the first two of the five criteria Marcus has established:

• In 2029, AI will not be able to watch a movie and tell you accurately what is going on (what I called the comprehension challenge in The New Yorker, in 2014). Who are the characters? What are their conflicts and motivations? etc.
• In 2029, AI will not be able to read a novel and reliably answer questions about plot, character, conflicts, motivations, etc. Key will be going beyond the literal text, as Davis and I explain in Rebooting AI.

Here’s what Marcus said about the first one in his New Yorker article:

... allow me to propose a Turing Test for the twenty-first century: build a computer program that can watch any arbitrary TV program or YouTube video and answer questions about its content—“Why did Russia invade Crimea?” or “Why did Walter White consider taking a hit out on Jessie?”

What would be considered acceptable answers to those questions? Though I watched Breaking Bad, it was so long ago that I haven’t the foggiest idea about that second question. But, when you consider the range of discussion about Russia’s reasons for the current invasion of Ukraine, I think we need consider a range of answers as being valid. Moreover, I think that issue needs to be carefully explored prior to the holding the contest.

I note that I have read movie reviews written by professional critics where the critic makes a mistake or mistakes about what happened in the film. I don’t know how reviewing is done these days when DVDs and streaming media can easily be made available to critics, but there was a time when the critic saw the film once and had to write the review based on that single viewing. Simply producing and accurate report of what happened based on a single viewing is not easy. Furthermore, I’ve read many plot summaries in Wikipedia and other places that are problematic; they get things wrong or are confusing. Writing decent plot summaries is not easy.

Thus when Marcus says, “Key will be going beyond the literal text,” I appreciate that. I’m trained as a literary critic and have done quite a bit of it. But 1) I think he underestimates how tricky it is simply to get “the literal text” right, and 2) I’m not sure he appreciates just how tricky that is, distinguishing between the “literal” text and all that other ‘deeper’ stuff.

More or less off the top of my head, I think that, prior to the contest, a panel of experts, let’s say three to five, needs to identify the movie to be used and come up with the questions that will be asked and to explore the range of acceptable answers. They might even show the movie to a sample of humans and put the questions to them to see how they answer them.

Isn’t that a little complicated? you ask. No, it’s not, not if you think the issue is an important one. What about the expense? Good question. Maybe some kind philanthropist will foot the bill.

Some questions about Steven Spielberg’s Jaws

I’ve recently written about the movie, so it is fairly fresh in my mind. Let me propose some questions and discuss the range of answers.

How many sharks were killed in the film?

Two, the killer shark, and some other shark that was mistaken for the killer.

Comment: While this question is about what actually happened, and so the answer should be obvious, it is worth asking. Simply answering “two”, though correct, is not sufficient. There might be a problem in designating the two sharks as neither have names. We know them only from their circumstances. A proper answer would recognize that two were killed, one in mid-film and one at the end, and say something to differentiate them. That makes this just a bit tricky.

How many people did the shark kill? List them and say something about the circumstances of their deaths.

The proper answer is five:

1) There is the young woman at the beginning – I forget her name – who was killed at night while swimming from the beach.
2) There is the young boy killed during the day at the beach as others were there, including his mother.
3) There is the fisherman who was killed in unknown circumstances. We found out about his death when Brody and Cooper went out at night looking for the shark. They found the man’s sunken boat and saw his body.
4) A man was killed during the day while people were afraid that the shark was going to kill some children.
5) Quint, at the end.

Comment: Again, this is about what happened, no probing for motives or meaning. I would consider identifying 1, 2, 4, and 5 as being an acceptable answer. Given that Quint is a central character, he should be identified by name; the others need not be. We don’t see the killing directly in 1 but we do see struggle; nor do we see the 2nd killing, but we see blood in the water and the dead body immediately after. I believe that we do see the shark bite the man in 4, but I could be mistaken. There is no mistaking Quint’s death, as it was drawn out and grisly.

The third death is tricky since we actually don’t see the event like we did the others, we only infer it from other events. When I was working on the movie I had to verify that this death had happened. It would be nice for the AI to pick it up, but not necessary.

Why was the mayor reluctant to close the beaches?

The town was depending on revenue from its summer tourist business. People won’t visit the town if they can’t go swimming. They can’t go swimming if the beaches are closed.

Comment: I think the AI has to pretty much nail this one. It’s about causal reasoning, and it’s stated in pretty much those terms in the movie.

What significance is attributed to the fact that Sheriff Brody is a native of Amity?

The mayor says that he doesn’t appreciate the fact that the town depends on tourist dollars.

Comment: The mayor does say that explicitly. But there’s more going on. Brody’s wife is keenly aware of the fact that she and her husband are outsiders. How do we get the AI to address this? What do humans say about this issue?

How many men went out on the boat after the shark? What’s the name of the boat? Who were the men and why were they on the boat?

The boat is the Orca. The men: Quint, Cooper, Sheriff Brody. Quint went because it’s his boat and he’s a professional shark hunter. Also, he was hired to kill the shark. Cooper went because he’s a shark expert, is interested in sharks for scientific reasons, and has special expertise and equipment. Brody went because he’s the Sheriff and public safety is his responsibility but also because he’s the one who negotiated the deal. The town’s paying for it, but it’s his charter.

Comment: The AI has to identify the boat and name the men. As for why they were on the boat, I think the AI has to get a bunch of that, but not necessarily all of it. I’d like to see how humans respond to the question. Of course, there is more to be said about Quint’s motivation. I think that requires a question of its own.

Why did Quint become a shark hunter? Why did he hate sharks?

Because he was almost killed by sharks when he was in the navy and his ship was sunk. He was in the water for several days and saw many men killed by sharks.

Comment: I think that will do as an answer, but I don’t think it quite gets us to him being a shark hunter. For example, why didn’t he become fearful of the sea and sharks and become a shop keeper or a mechanic. Again, I’d like to see what kinds of answers people give to the questions.

What was the name of the ship Quint was on in the navy? What was its mission?

It was the Indianapolis and it was delivering an atomic bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima.

Comment: Again, a literal answer. But it moves by quickly in the film – I assume the AI is working through speech recognition software, no? – so you have to listen carefully.

Why did the woman offer $3000 to the person who killed the shark?

Because the shark killed her son.

Comment: The AI has to nail this one. Doing so requires a bit of inference because she doesn’t mention her son in the reward notice – at least I don’t recall that she does.

Was her contest successful?

No.

Comment: That’s correct, but we want the AI to say more. Ideally it would offer more, otherwise we’re going to have to quiz it a bit. We need to be sure the AI realizes that that contest is not what sent Quint, Brody, and Cooper out on the Orca. If, additionally, the AI can tell us that the contest was a farce, jamming the streets and the harbor, and giving us a false kill, that would be nice.

More generally, I think we have to be prepared for open-ended conversation. Obviously, that cannot be gamed out in advance. But we can come up with a list of specific questions, say 20 or so, and we can put those questions to real people as preparation. These preparations need to be written up in advance of the trial and made available to whoever is adjudicating the bet, whether it’s Kevin Kelly or someone else. I’m inclined to think that the team or teams presenting AIs as candidates should not know the questions in advance as we don’t want them to tune the AI for them.

Should they have input into the process of coming up with the questions? They need some guarantee that the questions are not going to be all but impossible. Perhaps that’s the responsibility of the adjudicator.

What about the novel?

That’s the second part of the challenge. Rather than list a bunch of candidate questions I want to make a few remarks about picking the novel. Yes, I chose Jaws as a movie because I’m familiar with it. But I also chose it because it was intended for and popular with the general movie-going public. There’s nothing tricky, esoteric, or highly intellectual about that film.

Thus, in choosing a novel, we probably want to avoid novels like Joyce’s Ulysses, which is notoriously difficult. On the other hand, something like Treasure Island would be perfectly fine. It is a classic – though that need not be a criterion for the challenge – and, as I recall, pretty straight-forward.

But I want to say a few words about another possibility, Wuthering Heights. Again, it’s classic. I believe I may have read it in my high school English class. In any event, I certainly read it in my teens, and two or three times since.

The chronology is tricky, and that’s one thing questioning should focus on. Again, I’m talking about getting the literal sense of the text correct, no interpretation.

The story depicts a stream of events, from just before the time Heathcliff arrives at Wuthering Heights to the time of his death. But the narrative doesn’t open at the beginning of that stream. It opens relatively near the end. Lockwood, who plays no role in those events, arrives at Wuthering Heights to speak to the owner of property, Thrushcross Grange, that he is renting. The weather is bad and he spends the night at the Heights. After taking tenancy at the Grange he falls ill and returns to the Heights where he is nursed by one Nelly Dean, who tells him the story behind the residents currently living at the Heights. That story begins thirty years ago. She concludes the tale, Lockwood leaves, and returns eight months later and finds out how the story finally ended.

Simply reconstructing the stream of events from the convoluted order of the telling, that’s worthwhile. If you want to move into the tricky zone, when Lockwood first arrives at the Heights he’s met by a handful of people. He makes some assumptions about how they are related to one another. Those assumptions prove wrong and it takes him awhile to get things right. Why did he make the assumptions that he did? The answer is easy enough. When you enter a home and find males and females of two generations, and a couple others (servants), you assume they are a family, a married couple and their children. That assumption proved false and it took a while for Lockwood to figure out the relationships between the people he saw. Would the AI recognize that assumption? Would it be able to follow Lockwood’s reasoning as he figures things out?

I could go on and on. My point is simple, even getting a superficial grasp of events can prove tricky. Again, if Musk decides to take the bet, or if someone else takes up the challenge, I think that preparations for these first two tasks have to be done very carefully. In particular, I recommend that when the movie and novel are chosen, that they be tested on humans first so that the judges have a clear sense of how humans respond to the questions. Those response should be written up and made available to the judges and, when the challenge is complete, to the general public.

Of course the novel or novels chosen need not be classics. I just picked Wuthering Heights because it interests me (I’ve blogged about it a bit) and because it presents interesting issues at the most superficial level. But, sure, go with a Harry Potter, a mystery, a romance, science fiction, whatever. But pick it carefully and don’t overlook the need to probe for comprehension of the surface events.

Humans and Dogs in Wuthering Heights

An old post that I've decided to promote to the top of the list on general principle.

* * * * *

I first published this note on The Valve for December 30, 2009. It speaks to my recent posts on animals, especially in cartoons (e.g. Where'd the Animals Go?). Humankind's history of domestication and mutual adaptation with dogs is perhaps deeper than that with any other animal.

About a month ago I posted a bleg in which I asked whether or not anyone knew of any critical work which looked at Wuthering Heights in relation to contemporary lore and literature on feral children. In that bleg I quoted this important description of Heathcliff from chapter 10 in which Heathcliff is likened to a wolf:

Nelly, help me to convince her of her madness. Tell her what Heathcliff is: an unreclaimed creature, without refinement, without cultivation; an arid wilderness of furze and whinstone. I’d as soon put that little canary into the park on a winter’s day, as recommend you to bestow your heart on him! It is deplorable ignorance of his character, child, and nothing else, which makes that dream enter your head. Pray, don’t imagine that he conceals depths of benevolence and affection beneath a stern exterior! He’s not a rough diamond--a pearl-containing oyster of a rustic: he’s a fierce, pitiless, wolfish man.

The wolf, of course, is biological cousin to the many forms of domestic dogs, and various forms of dogs do appear throughout Wuthering Heights. In particular, violence between dogs and humans takes place at important transition points in the novel. I’ve collected five such passages in this post and italicized the dog references within each passage.

 

* * * * *

Chapter I: Lockwood has rented Thrushcross Grange and goes to Wuthering Heights to pay his respects to his landlord, Mr. Heathcliff. In a sense this is the the most important transition of all because it gets us and Lockwood into the Wuthering Heights world.

I took a seat at the end of the hearthstone opposite that towards which my landlord advanced, and filled up an interval of silence by attempting to caress the canine mother, who had left her nursery, and was sneaking wolfishly to the back of my legs, her lip curled up, and her white teeth watering for a snatch. My caress provoked a long, guttural gnarl.

'You'd better let the dog alone,' growled Mr. Heathcliff in unison, checking fiercer demonstrations with a punch of his foot. 'She's not accustomed to be spoiled--not kept for a pet.' Then, striding to a side door, he shouted again, 'Joseph!'

Joseph mumbled indistinctly in the depths of the cellar, but gave no intimation of ascending; so his master dived down to him, leaving me vis-a-vis the ruffianly bitch and a pair of grim shaggy sheep-dogs, who shared with her a jealous guardianship over all my movements. Not anxious to come in contact with their fangs, I sat still; but, imagining they would scarcely understand tacit insults, I unfortunately indulged in winking and making faces at the trio, and some turn of my physiognomy so irritated madam, that she suddenly broke into a fury and leapt on my knees. I flung her back, and hastened to interpose the table between us. This proceeding aroused the whole hive: half-a-dozen four-footed fiends, of various sizes and ages, issued from hidden dens to the common centre. I felt my heels and coat-laps peculiar subjects of assault; and parrying off the larger combatants as effectually as I could with the poker, I was constrained to demand, aloud, assistance from some of the household in reestablishing peace.

Chapter 6: Catherine and Heathcliff travel to Thrushcross Grange and look in through a window where they see Isabella and Edgar Linton fighting over a lap dog. Catherine is so badly bitten by a bull dog that she has to stay at the Grange for a month to recover. When she returns to the Heights she’s somewhat estranged from Heathcliff.

Old Mr. and Mrs. Linton were not there; Edgar and his sisters had it entirely to themselves. Shouldn't they have been happy? We should have thought ourselves in heaven! And now, guess what your good children were doing? Isabella--I believe she is eleven, a year younger than Cathy--lay screaming at the farther end of the room, shrieking as if witches were running red-hot needles into her. Edgar stood on the hearth weeping silently, and in the middle of the table sat a little dog, shaking its paw and yelping; which, from their mutual accusations, we understood they had nearly pulled in two between them. The idiots! That was their pleasure! to quarrel who should hold a heap of warm hair, and each begin to cry because both, after struggling to get it, refused to take it. We laughed outright at the petted things; we did despise them!

Heathcliff is telling the story to Nelly Dean, who’s telling it to Lockwood, who in turn is telling it to us. The story continues:

'Hush, hush!' I interrupted. 'Still you have not told me, Heathcliff, how Catherine is left behind?'

'I told you we laughed,' he answered. 'The Lintons heard us, and with one accord they shot like arrows to the door; there was silence, and then a cry, "Oh, mamma, mamma! Oh, papa! Oh, mamma, come here. Oh, papa, oh!" They really did howl out something in that way. We made frightful noises to terrify them still more, and then we dropped off the ledge, because somebody was drawing the bars, and we felt we had better flee. I had Cathy by the hand, and was urging her on, when all at once she fell down. "Run, Heathcliff, run!" she whispered. "They have let the bull-dog loose, and he holds me!" The devil had seized her ankle, Nelly: I heard his abominable snorting. She did not yell out--no! she would have scorned to do it, if she had been spitted on the horns of a mad cow. I did, though: I vociferated curses enough to annihilate any fiend in Christendom; and I got a stone and thrust it between his jaws, and tried with all my might to cram it down his throat. A beast of a servant came up with a lantern, at last, shouting--"Keep fast, Skulker, keep fast!" He changed his note, however, when he saw Skulker's game. The dog was throttled off; his huge, purple tongue hanging half a foot out of his mouth, and his pendent lips streaming with bloody slaver.

Chapter 12: Heathcliff elopes with Isabella Linton. Suave charmer that he is, he hangs Isabella’s dog.

'She abandoned them under a delusion,' he answered; 'picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and acting on the false impressions she cherished. But, at last, I think she begins to know me: I don't perceive the silly smiles and grimaces that provoked me at first; and the senseless incapability of discerning that I was in earnest when I gave her my opinion of her infatuation and herself. It was a marvellous effort of perspicacity to discover that I did not love her. I believed, at one time, no lessons could teach her that! And yet it is poorly learnt; for this morning she announced, as a piece of appalling intelligence, that I had actually succeeded in making her hate me! A positive labour of Hercules, I assure you! If it be achieved, I have cause to return thanks. Can I trust your assertion, Isabella? Are you sure you hate me? If I let you alone for half a day, won't you come sighing and wheedling to me again? I daresay she would rather I had seemed all tenderness before you: it wounds her vanity to have the truth exposed. But I don't care who knows that the passion was wholly on one side: and I never told her a lie about it. She cannot accuse me of showing one bit of deceitful softness. The first thing she saw me do, on coming out of the Grange, was to hang up her little dog; and when she pleaded for it, the first words I uttered were a wish that I had the hanging of every being belonging to her, except one: possibly she took that exception for herself. But no brutality disgusted her: I suppose she has an innate admiration of it, if only her precious person were secure from injury! Now, was it not the depth of absurdity--of genuine idiotcy, for that pitiful, slavish, mean-minded brach to dream that I could love her?

Chapter 17: Catherine Linton has died in the previous chapter. We’re at Wuthering Heights, miserable home of Isabella and Heathcliff; Hindley and Hareton live there as well. Isabella is pregnant. Hindley takes a shot at Heathcliff; Heathcliff beats him half to death. The next day Isabella flees:

'The back of the settle and Earnshaw's person interposed between me and him; so instead of endeavouring to reach me, he snatched a dinner-knife from the table and flung it at my head. It struck beneath my ear, and stopped the sentence I was uttering; but, pulling it out, I sprang to the door and delivered another; which I hope went a little deeper than his missile. The last glimpse I caught of him was a furious rush on his part, checked by the embrace of his host; and both fell locked together on the hearth. In my flight through the kitchen I bid Joseph speed to his master; I knocked over Hareton, who was hanging a litter of puppies from a chair-back in the doorway; and, blessed as a soul escaped from purgatory, I bounded, leaped, and flew down the steep road; then, quitting its windings, shot direct across the moor, rolling over banks, and wading through marshes: precipitating myself, in fact, towards the beacon-light of the Grange. And far rather would I be condemned to a perpetual dwelling in the infernal regions than, even for one night, abide beneath the roof of Wuthering Heights again.'

I find this incident particulary telling, set as it as, amongst some much violence between humans and however briefly the puppy hanging is mentioned. Just another day at the Heights.

Isabella gives birth to Linton Heathcliff a bit later in the chapter.

Chapter 18: Catherine Linton (the younger) goes from Thrushcross Grange to Wuthering Heights and her dogs get into a fight with Hareton’s.

The summer shone in full prime; and she took such a taste for this solitary rambling that she often contrived to remain out from breakfast till tea; and then the evenings were spent in recounting her fanciful tales. I did not fear her breaking bounds; because the gates were generally locked, and I thought she would scarcely venture forth alone, if they had stood wide open. Unluckily, my confidence proved misplaced. Catherine came to me, one morning, at eight o'clock, and said she was that day an Arabian merchant, going to cross the Desert with his caravan; and I must give her plenty of provision for herself and beasts: a horse, and three camels, personated by a large hound and a couple of pointers. I got together good store of dainties, and slung them in a basket on one side of the saddle; and she sprang up as gay as a fairy, sheltered by her wide-brimmed hat and gauze veil from the July sun, and trotted off with a merry laugh, mocking my cautious counsel to avoid galloping, and come back early. The naughty thing never made her appearance at tea. One traveller, the hound, being an old dog and fond of its ease, returned; but neither Cathy, nor the pony, nor the two pointers were visible in any direction: I despatched emissaries down this path, and that path, and at last went wandering in search of her myself. There was a labourer working at a fence round a plantation, on the borders of the grounds. I inquired of him if he had seen our young lady.

'I saw her at morn,' he replied: 'she would have me to cut her a hazel switch, and then she leapt her Galloway over the hedge yonder, where it is lowest, and galloped out of sight.'

You may guess how I felt at hearing this news. It struck me directly she must have started for Penistone Crags. 'What will become of her?' I ejaculated, pushing through a gap which the man was repairing, and making straight to the high-road. I walked as if for a wager, mile after mile, till a turn brought me in view of the Heights; but no Catherine could I detect, far or near. The Crags lie about a mile and a half beyond Mr. Heathcliff's place, and that is four from the Grange, so I began to fear night would fall ere I could reach them. 'And what if she should have slipped in clambering among them,' I reflected, 'and been killed, or broken some of her bones?' My suspense was truly painful; and, at first, it gave me delightful relief to observe, in hurrying by the farmhouse, Charlie, the fiercest of the pointers, lying under a window, with swelled head and bleeding ear. I opened the wicket and ran to the door, knocking vehemently for admittance. A woman whom I knew, and who formerly lived at Gimmerton, answered: she had been servant there since the death of Mr. Earnshaw.

. . . . . .

This, however, is not making progress with my story. Miss Cathy rejected the peace-offering of the terrier, and demanded her own dogs, Charlie and Phoenix. They came limping and hanging their heads; and we set out for home, sadly out of sorts, every one of us. I could not wring from my little lady how she had spent the day; except that, as I supposed, the goal of her pilgrimage was Penistone Crags; and she arrived without adventure to the gate of the farm-house, when Hareton happened to issue forth, attended by some canine followers, who attacked her train. They had a smart battle, before their owners could separate them: that formed an introduction. Catherine told Hareton who she was, and where she was going; and asked him to show her the way: finally, beguiling him to accompany her. He opened the mysteries of the Fairy Cave, and twenty other queer places.

That’s 18 out of 34 chapters. I’ve not had time to scout out the rest of the book for such incidents. Truth be told, I didn’t have time to scout out these five cases either. I just took them from old notes. Apparently that’s as far as I got with this project back in the day. Still, it’s enough to give you a sense of how dog imagery is used in the book.

The King’s Wayward Eye: For Claude Lévi-Strauss

I originally published this at The Valve, which seems to have disappeared from the web, in November of 2009, roughly two weeks after Lévi-Strauss had died on October 30, 2009. I'm reposting it here on general principle.

* * * * *

Farewell to freedom in the Adriatic and to days of wild abandon.

– Hayao Miyazaki via Porco Rosso

The news of his death has, by now, no doubt spread to every region of cyberspace where his ideas have seen use and remembrance. I am speaking, of course, about Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009), tamer of wild flowers, pollinator of myth, and diviner of opposites. I learned of his ideas in the days when Structuralism was something in its own right rather than being a doormat at the threshold of Poststructuralism, Deconstruction, and Postmodernism. I thought his ideas about myth were quite profound, but not fully-formed.

This note is an attempt to indicate what I saw in his study of myth despite the fact that I cannot give a concise account of what he did nor can I recommend such an account. You have to read the man himself. First I say a little about his ideas, then I suggest their implications for literary study by giving an example from early modern English literature, a comparison of Robert Green’s  with Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale. I then suggest extensions of that analysis both into Shakespeare and into the novel (Wuthering Heights).

The Structural Study of Myth

I first learned of Lévi-Strauss during my undergraduate years at Johns Hopkins in the late 1960s. I believe it was in one of Dick Macksey’s courses, The Idea of the Theater. I forget whether Macksey assigned “The Structural Study of Myth” or merely suggested it. No matter. I read it, didn’t understand it, and was hooked: “The true constituent units of myth are not the isolated relations but bundles of such relations, and it is only as bundles that these relations can be put to use and combined so as to produce meaning.” First Oedipus; then the Zuni emergence myth, compared with those in other Pueblo tribes, finally a Plains myth to round things off. “In all cases, it was found that the theory was sound; light was thrown, not only on North American mythology, but also on a previously unnoticed kind of logical operation, or own known so far only in a wholly different context.” Yippie kayo git along little dogies!

But what did it mean? Lévi-Strauss presented theoretical tools from structural linguistics: the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign, langue vs. parole, synchronic and diachronic all did yeoman work in that essay. But those concepts were invented to illuminate words and sentences, phonemes and grammar, not whole texts, which have traditionally been outside the remit of linguistics-the-discipline. And such strange texts. You had to follow his mind as he worked his way through those myths. Even then, it was a bit obscure. Perhaps even to Lévi-Strauss himself, as though he followed his nose because the trail wasn’t quite visible to the eye.

That first essay on myth was originally published in the Journal of American Folklore in 1955, two years before Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures went huffing and puffing against the walls of linguistics – and blew them all down (well . . . ). But his major study of myth was a four volume work, Mythologiques, that appeared between from 1964 to 1971. The first volume appeared in English translation in 1969 as The Raw and the Cooked. From M1 Bororo, o xibae e iare, “The macaws and their nest,” on through to M187 Amazonia, “The visit to the sky,” Lévi-Strauss explicated the inter-linking logic of these 187 stories, dressed the whole in musical terminology–The “Good Manners” Sonata, Fugue of the Five Senses, Well-Tempered Astronomy, and such–all the while failing to gain a high ground from which he could see the figure in the carpet rather than following the lines where they led, inevitably crossing and re-crossing in endless variation.

That is to say, a decade after he began the study of myth Lévi-Strauss still hadn’t figured out what he was doing. Thus he designated the first myth as the “key” myth, but then asserted that it was but an arbitrary starting point. If arbitrary, then how key? And what does one make of this: “As the myths themselves are based on secondary codes (the primary codes being those that provide the substance of language), the present work is put forward as a tentative draft of a tertiary code, which is intended to ensure the reciprocal translatability of several myths. This is why it would not be wrong to consider this book itself as a myth; it is, as it were, the myth of mythology.”

Ah, no, it is not. Not a myth. Not the myth of mythology. It is more like A Prolegomena to a Theory of Myth that No-One has been Able to Write because the Human Mind has Proven more Devious than the Structuralists could have Guessed and the Poststructuralists haven’t Helped at All by Jumping up and down and Pointing to the Sky in Fear and Wonder and the Cognitivists didn’t get it (not yet) and the Evocritics? Fugeddaboudit.

The key idea is that of transformation. For analytic purposes we start with some myth, call it M1. Apply some transformation to it and we have M2, thus:

t(M1) –> M2

Now we apply some (other) transformation to M2 and, voilà! M3. And so on and so forth, transformation by transformation, myth by myth. Of course, it’s not quite that simple. But that’s enough to give a crude sense of what Lévi-Strauss was attempting.

Just what does Lévi-Strauss mean by transformation? While one might think that he’s making a genetic argument, that some myth X is derived from some other myth W by applying some transformation to W to yield Y, that is not at all what he means. It’s not at all clear that these transformations are anything but analytic tools, or fictions, if you will. The idea is that myths are expressions of underlying mental structures, including kinship systems and the associated roles, all the arts of living, lore about local flora and fauna, the local geography, and so on. Beyond an insistence upon binary oppositions, Lévi-Strauss has no explicit account of how that knowledge is organized and so cannot offer a very explicit account of how myths are derived from that knowledge, which is largely unconscious. That is, he was unable to say: 1) Here is a body of knowledge organized in such and such a way. 2) Here is a procedure that operates on that body so that, 3) upon execution, we have a myth.

What he does, instead, is offer an indirect argument. Let us say that the cognitive base (CB) for a myth is that “region” of cognitive structure, and no more, that supports the myth. When Lévi-Strauss talks of a transformation obtaining between M1 and M2 he’s saying that CB1 and CB2 are the same except in some limited respect. That limited respect is what he incorporates into the transformation. If you transform CB1 in that limited respect, then you have CB2. Notice you could easily think of the difference as going in the other direction as well, from CB2 to CB1. The point is that there is a limited and specific difference. If one then generates myths M1 and M2 from CB1 and CB2, respectively, those myths will be different in a way that can be attributed to the difference between the two cognitive bases.

If this seems rather abstract, well, yes, Lévi-Strauss’s procedure is rather abstract. Rather than fleshing things out with a few of his myth examples I want to turn to a comparison between Greene’s Pandosto and Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale. What I am about to do isn’t quite like what he did in The Raw and the Cooked, but then neither are the texts I’m working with. In particular, I will not talk of his beloved binary oppositions, not here and now. I will say, however, that the following analysis wouldn’t have occurred to me if I hadn’t first struggled my way through Lévi-Strauss.

Family Problems

Greene first published Pandosto: The Triumph of Time in 1592 while The Winter’s Tale was written in 1611. The similarities between the two are so striking that it is all but certain that Shakespeare derived his plot from Greene’s—in this respect my example is quite different from Lévi-Strauss’s since, as I’ve already remarked, his argument isn’t a genetic one. My argument isn’t genetic either; I would make it even if we had no reason to believe that Shakespeare had read Greene. The genetic relationship is a matter of history. But the argument is about matters of structure: character for character, the major characters are mirrored in the two stories and perform pretty much the same actions in each.

But they are not quite the same. In fact, since The Winter’s Tale ends in happy triumph while Pandosto’s ending is, at best, bittersweet – Pandosto commits suicide even though the young lovers are united – one might reasonably judge them to be quite different. That is what makes these two texts so interesting. This table lays out the correspondence between the characters in the two texts:

Neutral           Pandosto       Winter’s  Tale
King              Pandosto       Leonato
Queen             Bellaria       Hermione
King’s son        Garinter       Mamillius
King’s daughter   Fawnia         Perdita
King’s Friend     Egistus        Polixenes
Friend’s son      Dorastus       Florizel
Shepherd          Porrus         Old shepherd

The basic story goes like this: The King and Queen have been married for a number of years and have a son. The King’s childhood friend is visiting and the King decides that his wife, the Queen, has been having an affair with this Friend, also a King. The Queen denies it, but the King is convinced they’re lying. The Friend leaves and the Queen is imprisoned. A messenger is sent to consult an oracle on whether or not the Queen is guilty. In Pandosto, it is the Queen who requests this; in Winter's it is the King. Meanwhile, the Queen gives birth to a daughter who is brought before the King. The King denies his daughter. The infant daughter is set adrift in the ocean. Meanwhile, the messenger returns from the oracle and declares the Queen to be innocent. The son dies and, upon hearing that news, the Queen faints. In Pandosto the Queen dies; in Winter’s she does not, she hides away.

In Greene, the oracle says:

[Para. 29] The Oracle.
 Suspition is no proofe: Jealousie is an unequall judge: Bellaria is chast: Egistus blameless: Franion a true subject: Pandosto threacherous: his babe an innocent, and the King shall live without an heire: if that which is lost be not founde.

In Shakespeare, this:

Officer

[Reads] Hermione is chaste;
Polixenes blameless; Camillo a true subject; Leontes
a jealous tyrant; his innocent babe truly begotten;
and the king shall live without an heir, if that
which is lost be not found.

Notice that Shakespeare retained the phrase, “the king shall live without an heir, if that which is lost be not found.” This seems quite important, both for its import – the continuity of the King’s bloodline – and for its form, the phraseology is the same.

In both stories the daughter miraculously ends up in the country of the King’s childhood friend where she’s raised by an old Shepherd and his wife. In time the daughter matures and falls in love with a prince, who returns her love. The prince is none other than son to the King’s childhood friend. The prince’s father finds out about his beloved and forbids them to marry; after all, she is but a shepherd’s daughter. So the prince and the daughter decide to flee the country. They end up back in the King’s land where the daughter’s true identity is discovered. Now that she is known to be of noble birth, the marriage can proceed.

Local narrative logic and global order, or how we get from here to there in Heart of Darkness

Note: This is a stand-in for an idea that needs to be more fully developed.

The problem posed by form

Not long after I began working on Heart of Darkness I discovered that a sentence a bit past the middle was by far the longest sentence in the text and that, when you charted sentence lengths from beginning to end, you get this:

There is clearly an order here, or is there? I don’t want to go through the whole argument here – you can find it in my working paper on Heart of Darkness (HERE or HERE) – but, in the case of that longest paragraph, I note that, in a text where Kurtz is a central figure, that’s the first time we learn much about him. In fact, we get a précis of his life. Moreover, that paragraph is bracketed by the death of the helmsman, who falls bleeding to the deck just before it and his corpse gets kicked overboard just afterward. That structurally central paragraph is thus very strongly marked.

One can imagine, of course, that Conrad did this according to some conscious and deliberate scheme of paragraph lengths. But we have no evidence of that. If it did not come about through conscious deliberation, then just HOW did it come about? That’s the problem, and it extends not just to that longest paragraph, but it to the whole text, particularly the second and third longest paragraphs, which come respectively after and before that longest paragraph.

How local intention can give rise to emergent order

I have a story to tell. It’s just that, but I’ve been sleeping on it for a few weeks now and I still like it, crude though it is.

We know that Conrad originally published Heart of Darkness in three pieces. Let us assume that he had at least a rough idea about how things would go from the beginning. Frankly, I can’t see how he could have done it any other way. It’s not as though Heart of Darkness has an intricate Dickensian plot that has to work its way out.

So, he knew that Kurtz was brilliant but insane, that he was sickly – thus explaining why no one had heard from him – and would die before the steamer made it back down the Congo, that he was betrothed to some woman, and that the story would end with Marlow having a conversation with that woman. He also knew that, while Kurtz would be named in the first installment, that we wouldn’t actually meet him in it. We wouldn’t meet him until the final installment, but Marlow would reach the Central Station at the very end of the second installment, though without meeting Kurtz.

But, and this is crucial, he wanted us have a précis of Kurtz’s story before we finally meet him in the last installment. [Why? Good question, but let’s leave it alone for now.] And so he has a technical problem: How do I bring this about? Technical problems have technical solutions, in this case, the double-narration – as we will see. Now, I can just as easily imagine that Conrad hit upon the idea of double-narration early in the game (remember, Emily Brontë used it in Wuthering Heights) and then asked himself: What can I do with this? It works either way.

This is how it works. The steamer is attacked a couple of hours before it gets to Central Station and the helmsman is killed. This is a “natural” incident for this kind of story; readers expect, no require, something like it to happen. When he’s told his onboard interlocutors about the helmsman dropping bleeding to the deck, Marlow is so shocked and moved that he interrupts his narrative and addresses them. He takes this occasion to deliver the précis of Kurtz’s career and ends that little recital with the comparison between Kurtz and the helmsman. He ends that comparison by observing that he did not set a higher value on the life of his helmsman than he did on the Kurtz’s life. Why, after all, Kurtz was remarkable in all sort of ways his helmsman was not? Why? Because he knew and had worked with his helmsman; there was a bond there. But Kurtz, no bond at all; Kurtz was just an embodied pile of abstractions.

And THAT’s what we take with us into the third installment. By the time we finally meet Kurtz we already know his story and we have Marlow’s judgment on the relative value of Kurtz and the helmsman.

I can imagine, as well, that just as Conrad planned to have Marlow end with a conversation with the Intended, he also planned to have Marlow get his job through the agency of women – his aunt, the secretaries. He need not have explicitly thought “I’m going to end with a women and begin with women”, but that simply followed from other considerations. Similarly, when he begins his précis it was all but natural for him to assert that it wasn’t about the women when, in fact, in some ways it was all about them.

And so we have our story with the longest paragraph, the précis, in the structural center, flanked by the death of the helmsman. No need for top-down planning. It simply followed from the logic of the narrative situation.

This chart shows some structural markers, the boundaries of the three sections in which the text was published, plus the portion (in light gray) actually spent at the Central Station:

Moving on, I note that that third longest paragraph [#88], the one before the structural middle, is about the African crew and establishes Marlow’s estimate of them:

[...] They had been engaged for six months (I don't think a single one of them had any clear idea of time, as we at the end of countless ages have. They still belonged to the beginnings of time—had no inherited experience to teach them as it were), and of course, as long as there was a piece of paper written over in accordance with some farcical law or other made down the river, it didn't enter anybody's head to trouble how they would live. Certainly they had brought with them some rotten hippo-meat, which couldn't have lasted very long, anyway, even if the pilgrims hadn't, in the midst of a shocking hullabaloo, thrown a considerable quantity of it overboard. [...] Why in the name of all the gnawing devils of hunger they didn't go for us—they were thirty to five—and have a good tuck in for once, amazes me now when I think of it. They were big powerful men, with not much capacity to weigh the consequences, with courage, with strength, even yet, though their skins were no longer glossy and their muscles no longer hard.

FWIW, it’s also the one place, other than pronouncing Kurtz dead, where an African speaks. They’re talking about the possibility of being attacked from the shore:

It was very curious to see the contrast of expressions of the white men and of the black fellows of our crew, who were as much strangers to that part of the river as we, though their homes were only eight hundred miles away. The whites, of course greatly discomposed, had besides a curious look of being painfully shocked by such an outrageous row. The others had an alert, naturally interested expression; but their faces were essentially quiet, even those of the one or two who grinned as they hauled at the chain. Several exchanged short, grunting phrases, which seemed to settle the matter to their satisfaction. Their headman, a young, broad-chested black, severely draped in dark-blue fringed cloths, with fierce nostrils and his hair all done up artfully in oily ringlets, stood near me. 'Aha!' I said, just for good fellowship's sake. 'Catch 'im,' he snapped, with a bloodshot widening of his eyes and a flash of sharp teeth—'catch 'im. Give 'im to us.' 'To you, eh?' I asked; 'what would you do with them?' 'Eat 'im!' he said curtly, and, leaning his elbow on the rail, looked out into the fog in a dignified and profoundly pensive attitude.

And that second-longest paragraph [#115], which comes after the structural middle, much of it is spoken by the Russian after Marlow had disembarked at Central Station. The Russian gives us his estimate of Kurtz:

The man filled his life, occupied his thoughts, swayed his emotions. 'What can you expect?' he burst out; 'he came to them with thunder and lightning, you know—and they had never seen anything like it—and very terrible. He could be very terrible. You can't judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man. No, no, no! Now—just to give you an idea—I don't mind telling you, he wanted to shoot me too one day—but I don't judge him.' 'Shoot you!' I cried. 'What for?' 'Well, I had a small lot of ivory the chief of that village near my house gave me. You see I used to shoot game for them. Well, he wanted it, and wouldn't hear reason. He declared he would shoot me unless I gave him the ivory and then cleared out of the country, because he could do so, and had a fancy for it, and there was nothing on earth to prevent him killing whom he jolly well pleased. And it was true too. I gave him the ivory. What did I care! But I didn't clear out. No, no. I couldn't leave him. I had to be careful, of course, till we got friendly again for a time. [...] Mr. Kurtz couldn't be mad. If I had heard him talk, only two days ago, I wouldn't dare hint at such a thing.

And it is in this paragraph that Marlow realizes that Kurtz had ringed the station with heads on stakes.

So, the longest paragraph in the text, which I have called the Nexus, gives us a précis of Kurtz’s career and ends with Marlow judging that Kurtz’s life wasn’t worth that of his African helmsman. That third longest paragraph, before the Nexus, is about the African crew, while the second longest paragraph, after the Nexus, is again about Kurtz, but as seen by the Russian and as Marlow himself observes the station.

That all makes tactical and strategic sense – in the tactics and strategy or narrative organization, of course. There is more to be said, and so forth. But later.

Do I believe this?

More or less, yes, as far as it goes. I certainly can’t prove it in any direct way. I have no access to Conrad’s thoughts as he was writing. But it seems plausible.

And it makes that remarkable structure seem less puzzling. Yes, it is the result of authorial intention, but intention is like the proverbial iceberg, most of it is below the sea, only a tenth or so is visible above the surface. That tenth, of course, rests on what’s hidden.

Authorial Intention in Literary Study, an Informal Note

Why have literary critics been so concerned about authorial intention? I say “have been” because these discussions were most vigorous back in the 1960s and 1970s, but now are not so important – though the issue is central to Joseph Carroll, the Darwinian critic.

One might think it was about how one reasons to an interpretation of a work. That’s certainly how it seemed back in the 60s and 70s. But I don’t believe that any more. For one thing, there are a few important cases where an appeal to the author has little traction. How do you appeal to the author of Iliad or Odyssey? We don’t know who Homer was, if indeed he was a single individual. While we do know who Shakespeare was – I give no credence to the arguments that Shakespeare was someone else – we know so little about him that an appeal to Shakespearean plausibility is little more than an appeal to the Elizabethan world view. And then in one peculiar and particular case where we know a great deal about the author – I’m thinking about Coleridge and “Kubla Khan” – critics feel free to ignore or reason away the one thing he told us about the text, that it is incomplete.

As a practical matter, whatever else we might know about a given author, whatever materials we might have – drafts, correspondence, essays, whatever ¬– the text itself is going to be out best source of evidence. The really tricky problems that arise with interpreting a literary texts – I’m thinking here of de Man’s essay, “Form and in Intent in the American New Criticism” – also exist in dealing with any form of secondary material, whether by the author or others. Something else is going on.

Wuthering Heights, Vampires, Handbooks, and Citizen Science

Heathcliff as vampire wannabe? Why didn't I think of that? Fortunately others have.

Over at The Literature Network, kev67 asked (in Nov 2012):

I was just wondering whether Wuthering Heights was some sort of proto-vampire book when in the last chapter Nelly herself wonders whether Heathcliff is a ghoul or a vampire. I was surprised as I did not think vampires had been discovered till later. I have not watched any of the Twilight films (and I don't intend to neither) but it struck me there were some similarities between Wuthering Heights, Twilight, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and other vampire films and television series. Heathcliff can stand bright sunlight; bibles, wooden crosses, garlic and holy water might annoy him but would not be sufficient to ward him off; and although driving a wooden stake through his heart would kill him, so would other methods of execution. However, there are some similarities: Heathcliff is evil (like most vampires). Heathcliff and Catherine continue to walk the Earth after death and do not find rest. Heathcliff has no hope of salvation, neither does he want it. Heathcliff's idea of heaven is close to torment. Heathcliff's love for Catherine is eternal (rather like some vampire love stories). Heathcliff's love for Catherine is rather chaste. Heathcliff is tall, strong, rather dark with long, black hair. Heathcliff forms one point of a love triangle with Catherine as the apex (a bit like Twilight I believe).

The good folks at Shmoop – "We speak student" – are on the case. Here's the lead to their Wuthering Heights material:

Edward and Bella, meet Heathcliff and Catherine.

That's right: before The Walking Dead, Twilight, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and The Vampire Diaries, there was Wuthering Heights.

At first glance, Heathcliff may not resemble the vampires that you've grown to know and love (or hate), but he's got a lot more going for him than most of 'em. Just saying.

Wuthering Heights, published in 1847, revolves around the passionate and destructive love between its two central characters, Emily Brontë's headstrong and beautiful Catherine Earnshaw and her tall, dark, handsome, and brooding hero/devil, Heathcliff.

Forget the romantic candlelit dinners, the wine, and the roses. Catherine and Heathcliff's love exists on an entirely different plane: one that involves ghosts, corpses, the communion (or possession) of souls, and revenge. And, speaking of revenge, Heathcliff—who harbors more than one grudge against his adoptive family, the love of his life, and his neighbors—manages to make every revenge drama look like kid's play.

And to seal the deal, "Reading Wuthering Heights gives you bragging rights over all your friends who think that the whole vampire thing started with Buffy. Suckas."

* * * * *

I'm thinking a couple of things.

First, the connection is valid. I assume that proper scholarly work has been done on this connection, tracing themes and connections, that sort of thing. If not, get on it, someone!

Second, I'm guessing that these two sites, Shmoop, and The Literature Network, are aimed at high school students and lower level undergraduates and community college students (and their teachers). And we've got Cliff's Notes and Spark Notes and others serving the same market. They all have basic stuff about literary texts, mostly canonical ones.

How much of the material at these sites could be consolidated into consensus handbooks of materials about these texts? These sites are commercial enterprizes and so, I assume, would be reluctant to give up their stuff to an open-access resource. But, they're already giving their stuff away on the net. Why don't they all draw on the same body of standard material, material that furthermore has been vetted by scholars – assuming you can find first-rate scholars willing to do this. These sites would also be useful for the casebook industry.

I've been calling for handbooks for awhile. My point is that we've got the seeds of that already on the net.

Third, this leads us to citizen science. There's lots of 'fan'-created stuff on the web. Some of high quality. This Wuthering Heights site, by Paul Thompson, is excellent. I found it when looking for a timeline of events in the story. Thompson's done quite a bit of sleuthing on this. There's handbook quality material lurking here.

But how do we put it all together? And just who is "we"? Does literary academia want to commit proud suicide or does it want to enter the 21st century and engage the large population of people who are interested in literature (though they might not give a crap about high theory)?