The character, Heathcliff, was portrayed an anti-hero; his hard-headedness was born out of rough treatment. Cathy had enquired the whereabouts of a whip her father promised to buy her and was aghast at the presentation of a dirty looking nipper found in a Liverpool street. The child was to suffer much abuse before he, himself, applied the same. It was partly that uncharacteristic nature which so bedevilled his relationship with Cathy.
- Are principles, rather than discernment, an unattractive feature?
- In the light of denial, does “sensitivity” hold no candour?
- Are principles, over prejudice, of no worth to refinement?
- When Heathcliff demonstrated his love for Cathy, did it show distaste?
- Did this character take another life in the process of doing so?
If Heathcliff appeared to be lacking in anything, it was love. His mannerisms became anti-social. He behaved like a man who could not compensate for the abuse he had to live with. He was haunted with the memories of Cathy and overcome with grief, yet it was something he preserved.
That Heathcliff preserved Cathy’s memory was admiral. It appeared to be a shadowed attractiveness, one revealed in short sequences of dry humour and stilted moments of pleasure. This is were the reader’s sympathy for his character shone. There was no real lack of conscience on his part; no impropriety to weigh him down (as far as the reader knows). In this, we can discern Heathcliff as a ‘Romeo’ and Cathy, his ‘Juliet’.
Summery:
I do not believe Heathciff deserved his fate, but then the story is stronger for it; a story of lost love and a sentence for any impropriety he delivered. There is much logic in this anti-hero; we can have sympathy and feel there would have been a physical/sexual attraction between the main leads. Heathcliff’s character showed plenty of backbone; by today’s standards, an entirely different prospect. Present anti-heroes ponder a demigod affiliation, but can never associated with the Heathcliff character of yesterday.
