Chapter 39 (Four)

It is an outstanding work.Novels reveal a great deal about their time, not only because they are written in a style common to their time, but because they are in perfect harmony with the intellectual climate of the time, with the morals of their authors, with the prejudices they accept or reject.A young David Copperfield could well have written such a novel (albeit with lesser talent), and Arthur Pendennis could have written something like Villette, although Laura's The influence no doubt led him to steer clear of the explicit sexuality that gives Charlotte Bronte its piquancy.But it is an exception.It had nothing to do with the novels of the time.It's a bad novel and a very good one.It's ugly, but beautiful.This is a frightening, harrowing, powerful, passionate book.Some people think it is impossible that a pastor's daughter who lives a quiet and monotonous life, knows few people, and knows nothing about the world can write such a work.In my opinion, this view is ridiculous.Extremely romantic.Romanticism always eschews patient observation of reality, concentrating instead on the free flight of the imagination, indulging (sometimes exuberantly, now somberly) in horror, mystery, passion, tyranny.Given Emily Brontë's character, and her repressed intensity, it's exactly the sort of book she should have written.But on the surface, this book looks more like it was written by her idiot brother Branwell, and there are indeed many people who have always believed that he is the author of all or part of the book.One of them, Francis Grandi, wrote: "Patrick Bronte has claimed to me that he wrote a considerable part of his own, and his sister's statement corroborates this statement. . . . We at Ludenton Ford On long walks he used to tell me the fantastic fantasies of the diseased genius, which are reproduced in the novel, and I am inclined to think that he conceived the plot rather than his sister." Once, Bu Two of Langwell's friends, Dearden and Ryland, arranged to meet him at a tavern on the road to Keighley, and read to each other their poems; the following is written by Dearden some twenty years later Part for the Halifax Guardian: "I read the first act of The Queen, but when Branwell reached into his hat (the container in which he usually kept his improvisations, He thought his poems were in there), but found that he had mistakenly put a few pages of a novel he 'tried' to write in it. Disappointed by this, he was about to put the papers back in the hat , both friends eagerly urged him to read it, because we were very curious to see how he handled the novelist's pen. He hesitated, and agreed to our request, throwing in the In his own hat, he held our attention firmly for nearly an hour. The story was interrupted suddenly in the middle of a sentence, and he told us the ending verbally, as well as the real names and surnames of the original characters, but because some of them are still alive , I can't make them public. He said he hadn't decided on a title for it, and was worried that he wouldn't find a publisher bold enough to release the book. Scenes from the parts Branwell read, and appearances in them The characters are all exactly the same, and yet Charlotte claims so confidently that it is the work of her sister Emily."

This statement is either a lie, or it is true.Charlotte despised her brother, and even hated him within Christian morality; but we all know that Christian morality always leaves room for much honest hatred, and Charlotte's unsubstantiated statement cannot be accepted.She may have convinced herself what she wanted to believe, as people often do.The story is so detailed that it is strange that someone should inexplicably make it up.How to explain?Can't explain it at all.It was suggested that Branwell wrote the first four chapters, then got drunk and drugged, and quit halfway, so Emily took over.The claim that these chapters are more prim and contrived than the later ones does not hold water in my opinion; if these chapters are grandiose, I think it is because Emily is trying to show that Lockwood is a foolish, conceited Fool, and successfully achieved its purpose.I have no doubt that it was Emily, and only Emily.

Admittedly, the book is not very well written.The Bronte sisters are poorly written.As governesses, they favor a flamboyant and pedantic style, to which someone coined a new word literatise.The main part of the story is narrated by Mrs. Dean, a maid from Yorkshire who does all sorts of work, like Tabby of the Brontes; Millie's way of expressing her point of view is very strange, and no one would speak like that.Here is a typical example: "I have repeatedly affirmed that the breach of trust and informant matter, if it deserves such a rough name, it will be the last time, and I use this affirmation to eliminate all uneasiness I feel about it. "Emily Bronte seems to have realized that she would never understand what she asked Mrs. Dean to say. In order to make sense, Emily asked her to say that she had the opportunity to read while working. A few books, but even so, the affectation of his speech is jaw-dropping.She is not "reading letters", but "reading letters"; what she sends is not "letters", but "letters".She didn't "get out of the room" but "out of the hall".She calls her day job a "day job."She "starts" rather than "begins."People do not "shout" or "scream", but "squawk"; they do not "listen", but "listen".It's pathetic that the pastor's daughter tries her best to make the story suave, but ends up being phony.But people don't expect to write very beautifully: the writing style is not necessarily a good thing.Like an early Flemish painting, The Burial of Christ, the pained, distorted faces of the bony people, their stiff and clumsy postures, add to the scene a great sense of horror and blunt brutality. , the effect of which is more shocking and tragic than Titian's beautiful depiction of the same event; so there is something in this crude tone of language which strangely heightens the intensity of the story.

The structure is bloated.This is not surprising, since Emily Bronte had never written a novel before, and what she was about to tell was a very complex story involving two entire generations.This is a very difficult matter, because the author must be careful not to let the interest of one overshadow the interest of the other in order to unite the two groups of characters and the two sets of plots.In this regard, Emily did not succeed.After Catherine Earnshaw's death, the power of the story wanes until the imaginative final pages.Little Catherine is an unsatisfactory character, and Emily Bronte doesn't seem to know what to do with her; she clearly fails to give her the passionate independence of old Catherine, nor the stupid weakness of her father.She's a spoiled, headstrong, boorish creature; you don't feel much sympathy for her suffering.How she fell in love with little Hareton is not clearly explained in the book.The figure of Hareton is very vague, and we know nothing of it except that he is sad and handsome.As I thought, the author of this story had to compress the passage of time into a limited period of time, so that readers can grasp it comprehensively at a glance, just as we can see the whole picture of a huge mural at a glance.I don't think Emily Bronte was trying to figure out how to write a messy story of fairly consistent impressions, but I believe she must have asked herself how to make the front and back coherent; she may have thought, The best way to do this yourself is to have one character tell the other a long sequence of stories.This method of storytelling is convenient, but she did not invent it.The downside, though, is that the narrator has to tell so many things, including scene descriptions (which no normal person would do), that it's impossible to maintain a dialogue at all.Make no mistake, since you have a narrator (Mrs. Dean), you must have a listener (Mr. Lockwood).A seasoned novelist might have used a better way to tell the story, but I can't believe it: Emily Brontë used this method based on someone else's creation.

But more than that, I think one would have expected her to take this approach just by thinking about her extremes, her morbid shyness, her reticence.What else?We could write the novel from an omniscient perspective, like Middlemarch and that.I feel that telling such atrocious stories as some of her own experiences is inconsistent with her stubborn and strong character; The story of, say, during those years, he managed to get an education and make a lot of money and things like that.But she couldn't do this, because she didn't know how he did it.The fact that the reader is forced to accept it is not credible, but she is willing to do so and ignore it at all.Another option would be for Mrs. Dean to tell the story to her (Emily Bronte), then in the first person; but I suspect that would also put her in touch with the reader Too close, which is too fragile and sensitive for her to bear.And through Lockwood narrating the beginning of the story, and by Mrs. Dean unveiling the veil to Lockwood, she hides herself behind a double mask.Mr. Bronte told such a story to Mrs. Gaskell, and it is worth mentioning here.When the children were young, because they were timid and could not see their characters, he wanted to know, so he let them put on an old mask in turn, because with their faces covered, they could answer his questions more boldly.When he asked Charlotte which was the best book in the world, she answered the Bible; but when he asked Emily what he should do with her troublesome brother, she said, "Talk to him , and if he won't listen, whip him."

Why does Emily hide herself when she writes this powerful, impassioned, terrifying book?I think it's because she reveals her most intimate instincts in the book.She peeped into the source of her loneliness and saw the unspeakable secret there, and the impulse as a writer forced her to get rid of this burden.It is said that what ignited her imagination were the stories her father used to tell about the Ireland of her youth, as well as the stories of Hoffman she learned in Belgium (after returning to the vicarage, she is said to still be reading). These stories, sitting on the rug in front of the fire, with an arm around the neck of the "steward").I'm inclined to think that in the mystical, violent, horror-like stories written by these German Romantic writers, she saw something appealing to her own wild character; Leaf and Catherine Earnshaw.I think she is Heathcliff herself, I think she is Catherine Earnshaw herself.Isn't it a little strange that she actually included herself in the two protagonists of the book?not at all.None of us are exactly the same, and there are more than one shadows in our bodies, and they are very strange; the special feature of the novel author is that he can objectively express the mixed personalities of individual characters, and It is his misfortune that he cannot bring characters to life, however necessary they may be in the story, if they do not have shadows of themselves in them.This is why the little Catherine in the movie is not satisfactory.

I think Emily gave all of herself to Heathcliff.She gave her rage, her lust (strong but thwarted), her unsatisfied love, her jealousy, her hatred and contempt for all mankind, her cruelty, her sadism, to he.Readers will remember this incident: She mercilessly punched her favorite dog in the face for a small reason.Alan Nassi also told another strange thing. "She likes to take Charlotte to places she wouldn't dare to go alone. Charlotte has a terrible fear of unknown animals, and Emily is happy to take her up close and tell her what she has done and how she did it. Yes, laughing at her horror with relish." I think Emily's love for Catherine Earnshaw is Heathcliff's vigorous animal love; She laughed when Shaw slammed his head against the slate, as she laughed at Charlotte's fear; , she smiled.I think she finds a liberating pleasure when she bullies, abuses, and intimidates her characters, because in real life she has endured this humiliation with other people; I also think that, Just like Catherine who doubled her roles, even though she fought with Heathcliff, even though she despised him, even though she knew he was a cruel person, she loved him with all her heart, and was delighted that she could control him, because Shi There are elements of masochism in the sadistic psychology, so she is very obsessed with his tyranny, his cruelty, and his wild character.She felt they were close, and they were (if I'm right that they're both Emily Bronte). "Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He will always be in my heart. He is not as a pleasure, not necessarily more interesting than me to myself, but as myself."

It's a love story, perhaps the strangest kind of love story, and a very strange part of it is that the lovers remain chaste.Catherine is passionately in love with Heathcliff, and so is the other party.As for Edgar Linton, Catherine had only kind (and sometimes exasperated) patience with him.People wondered why these two people who loved so much didn't elope, no matter what poverty they faced.People don't understand why the two didn't become real lovers.Perhaps Emily had been brought up to view fornication as an unforgivable sin, or perhaps sex between the sexes was something she was terribly disgusted with.I think both sisters are very sexy.Charlotte was plain in appearance, with a sallow complexion and a large nose when viewed from one side of her face.When she was not famous and penniless, someone proposed to her. In that era, men expected their wives to bring a fortune.But it is not beauty that makes a woman attractive; in fact, beauty of the highest order is often frightening: you want to admire, but not to be moved.If men fell in love with a woman as critical and fault-finding as Charlotte, it was because they found her sexually attractive, which meant that they felt vaguely sexual in her.When she first married Mr. Nicholas, instead of falling in love with him, she found him narrow, authoritarian, gloomy, and unintelligent.It can be clearly seen from his letter that after marriage, her opinion of him has changed a lot. In her eyes, both of them have become frivolous.She fell in love with him, and his flaws didn't matter anymore.The most likely explanation is that her sexual desire was finally satisfied.There is no reason to think that Emily is less sexy than Charlotte.