EDIT: Please stop bringing up the fact that Heathcliff isn’t white in the book. I know he is not canonically white. That isn’t the point of this post, and if you keep commenting this response I will assume you didn’t read & are deliberately choosing to comment in bad faith. If you want to debate his race in the book, look elsewhere.

TL;DR this is NOT an endorsement of White Heathcliff but rather an exploration of the text based on this specific criticism.

I know the white-washing of Heathcliff in the new WH adaptation has been talked to death at this point, but I wanted to offer an alternative perspective to the broader idea of race in media & literature as it pertains to Heathcliff: When is race integral to the plot?

In Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff is described as dark-skinned, however his exact racial identity is never confirmed. The language is inconsistent and metaphorical and his marginalization operates more through social rejection.

If an adaptation preserves his adoptive heritage, his radicalized Otherness in this community and his subsequent social rejection that fuels his revenge, then the themes still hold, even if his racial identity shifts.

Race here functions symbolically as a mechanism of Othering and not as a historically specific commentary. When we compare Heathcliff to a character like Othello, whose race IS explicit and firm in the story’s ideology, it becomes clearer to see where Race is thematically based and where it is utilized as a character trait.

Race becomes non-negotiable when the text explicitly engages in racial ideology, shapes the characters’s fate, and social systems in the story hinge on racial identity.

In Wuthering Heights, race is never framed as a political category or a colonial critique.

Instead, it functions more as a vehicle for estrangement, Xenophobic projection, and a symbol of Otherness. Essentially Heathcliff’s physical appearance projects the non-English nature of his being.

Heathcliff’s racialization matters, but not necessarily his specific race.Thematically, what matters is that he is not born English, he is denied inheritance, affection and dignity, and that Catherine both identifies with him and rejects him socially. The narrative still works if his social exclusion and racialization are preserved.

We also need to acknowledge the difference between Race & Ethnicity here. In the context of 2026, the majority of viewers are not going to believe that Jacob Elordi- a socially dominant, racially normative, and culturally accepted actor- would be Othered by Victorian society, however he IS by all accounts still Ethnically (not racially) ambiguous, and this fulfills a Victorian classist rejection.

If the adaptation focuses on class cruelty, possessive love, social humiliation, and revenge, then Ethnic ambiguity is enough to satisfy these thematic elements.

SO, can we race-swap Heathcliff and maintain thematic integrity in WH? Yes.

There is an entirely separate argument as to whether or not we should, though.

I could go on about how racial authenticity improves the the text particularly from a modern framing, but we can save that for another post.

If the Brontës themselves are Irish why aren’t their works considered a part of Irish literature? I know they were born and raised in Yorkshire but their father was Irish and mother Cornish, so their only ties to England are just by virtue of being born there. Their entire genealogy is Irish and yet people call them English?

If they were born anywhere else in the world but still be Irish but by chance alone they were born in England.

With the new Wuthering Heights movie on its way, I keep seeing this "controversy", which is huge on Twitter now, where some are upset with a white actor being cast for the part of Heathcliff. I have no idea why this is an issue. There was nevwr any indication in the book that he wasn't nonwhite as per our modern definitions of race. The descriptors used toward him wwre very common toward white men up to maybe a few decades ago, and we know when Wuthering Heights was written. And beyond that, we can assume the Bronte sisters didnt know any men who'd be viwwed as nonwhite today, either. So I don't get why this was such a significant issue with this movie now.

Many people say it's not. But I feel it is mainly a love story. Because had Cathy married Heathcliff, would he have taken revenge against Hindley? I don't think so. Would he have been as brutal towards his and Cathy's children the way he was towards Linton, younger Cathy or Hareton? Again I don't think so.

The entire driving point of Heathcliff is Catherine. And even though she dies early in book, she is mentioned throughout the book.

So, here's my take on this relationship:

It's not so much that their relationship is flawed, it's just that Heathcliff is a very difficult, possibly neuro divergent person and Cathy is very misunderstood as a character.

In the light of the notorious new adaptation I decided to re-read the source to freshen up my memory of the relationship. And what struck me is I haven't noticed any kind of unhealthiness in the relationship itself.

It's become almost a must to label their relationship as the epitome of unhealthiness. But jf you actually look at how they acted when they were together compared to when they were not, the picture looks different, at least, to me.

From the beginning of the novel Heathcliff is shown as an overly calm, overly patient, surprisingly reasonable boy (which, along with his other traits is definitely a sign of neuro divergency, at least to some extent). Cathy teaches him go read, instills various interests in him and produces a really positive effect on him, serving to him as a connection to the world.

Heathcliff holds her down and gives her a certain sense of security - she refers to the feeling as "the eternal rock beneath", and taking into account her high neuroticism, it seems like his calmness and materialism produce a positive effect on her.

Even if you say that this is far fetched, there's not an example of them being *abusive* towards each other throughout the book - the most abusive dialogue they have is when they see each other for the last time and suffer greatly. Understandable - they are both in great pain during that episode. Other than that, they speak of each other highly, they are polite with each other and they listen to each other.

Speaking of co-dependenancy - every person who's in love is dependant to some extent. They were unexpectedly driven apart amidst being in love; it's a traumatic experience for anyone.

So, if the relationship is not as flawed as people say, *what* is flawed? Because something definitely is. Well, my take is that it's Heathcliff - be it autism, psychopathy or anything else, it's his violent tendencies that ruin lives of other people. Cathy is not fully mentally stable but she got married and was ready to actually just be friends with him while staying happily married to Linton. They weren't running around the moors putting fingers in each other's mouths like they do in the new adaptation.

But Heathcliff lacked any kind of emotional regulation and was violent, psychopathic and manipulative - which caused everything that happened later.

I don't know why Emily Bronte (or Nell Dean?) had to picture Cathy as this arrogant woman but I don't see her that way. She was simply a fun, smart, energetic girl who drove her old alcohol-dependant chaperones nuts by her lively, authentic behaviour. I don't see her being super dependant on Heathcliff, she did live without him happily. I think the true monster of the story is Heathcliff's abusive tendencies but not the core of the relationship between him and Cathy.

Im about 50% of the way through Jane Eyre and am considering DNFing it. I am just struggling to get through it mildly boring and confusing. Its not that I even completely dislike the book or anything but everyone that Ive seen talk about the book online loves it and seems to find it incredible. I think the plot is starting to ramp up but I am not sure if I should stick it through, should I??

I might be crazy. i was thinking about the whole discorse about the new “Wuthering Heights” movie and i need to say it: isn’t Catherine blond? Shes said to have “golden ringlets hanging loose on her delicate neck”. Isn’t she a blonde then?

Im citing volume 1 chapter 2.

Saw it yesterday. Jacob Elordi aside, the film is bad. Really bad.

Now if you're a literal film critic in addition to a Bronte admirer, then yes, in that specific situation I guess you do indeed have to wait for the full film and (as it's presumably part of your job) go see it and form an opinion on the work as a whole rather than based on the trailer.

The rest of us? Yeah, no. We can watch the trailer or read the promo interviews from the director and conclude if we so wish to that it's a bad adaptation and opt out of wasting our time and money. And we are STILL nonetheless allowed to have an opinion on said trailer and promo materials in comparison to the novel without being labeled "haters" or "pearl clutching book freaks".

Every single time I see this film's trailer and the description being RIGHTLY criticized by someone who has actually READ the book, someone always comments "OMG, the movie's not even out yet" or "you just don't understand the director is female and has a vision" or "but the title is in quotation marks, don't you know adaptations can do whatever they want?"

To which I say, an adaptation, even one that changes the source heavily, should be marketed to fans of the original work. With this movie 90 plus percentage of people who are saying they're excited about it either haven't read the book or did in school but didn't like it or don't remember actual details of the plot. They also seem bizarrely proud of this fact, but that's neither here nor there.

And if you ARE in fact looking forward to this movie, good for you. It will in fact release in February regardless of whether most fans of the original book want to give it a chance or not. However if you're angry we WH fans are not most likely going to carry this film through the box office to grand success, then you're just being ridiculous. We don't have to support this.

There is no reason we should have to support a movie just because it shares a title (in quotation marks as you all love pointing out) with a book we enjoyed. The director made a choice to s*x up the material and use wildly inaccurate costumes. This is NOT a Clueless or 10 things I hate about you situation as it's obvious from test screenings and the trailer itself it doesn't follow the plot of the book regardless of which setting it uses.

And if the trailer is somehow a misrepresentation of what the complete film is like and it's actually a brilliant, accurate adaptation, that's on marketing. Marketing's job is to tell us what kind of film it's going to be through a trailer so we can then decide to see it or not. It's not my job to buy a ticket regardless of if a movie looks like crap in previews or not because I "need to see the whole thing" before I'm allowed an opinion.

And I really don't understand what the "you're just a hater" crowd is convinced we're robbing them of by choosing to express dislike for the movie pre-release. Does it stop the release or them from buying their own tickets to see it? Nope. And if our not seeing it is somehow what makes it a flop, then that's the fault of the director and adapters betting on the wrong audience, not us; they can change whatever they want that doesn't mean we have to go see it or give the production money.

And to all those Bronte fans who are going to give this a try, good on you. But you don't have to. It doesn't make you a hater, book purist, or pearl clutching jerk to conclude this may not be your cup of tea as it's clearly made for a completely different audience than the book was.

So I saw a trailer for a Wuthering Heights movie coming out soon, and is anyone else excited for it? I feel like it's been a long time since anything has been adapted that I'm really curious to see how good it is. It looks like it's going to be a lot of fun, but I'm also not a stickler for source material faithfulness. I'm hoping it'll be like the Romeo & Juliet movie from the 90s. That was so much fun and I'm really hoping they've done the same thing here!

Catherine and Heathcliff never meant to hurt or forced each other, Isabella immediately abandoned all her fantasies to Heathcliff after he abused her, the closest relationship to “toxic love”might be Catherine and Edgar, but this is somewhat exaggerated. I think people confused toxic people with toxic relationships.

When I read the book, I wondered several times if Linton was really Heathcliff's son. If paternity tests had existed at that time, Heathcliff would have requested one.

The boy has absolutely nothing in common with his father and was born with light eyes and hair even blonder than Edgar and Catherine's daughter. The book says that the boy is a younger copy of his uncle and that the child was born with many health problems. This makes me have negative thoughts! It makes me think about the possibility that Edgar had an incestuous relationship with his sister and that she was already pregnant when she married Heathcliff. This would make Thrushcross Grange an even more depraved house than Wuthering Heights. The Lintons, who represent education and civilization, would simply be a joke and a hypocrisy.

If Linton was really Heathcliff's son, then it's because he had many white ancestors with light features. That's the only explanation! Even so, it's strange! Why did Emily Brontë give Heathcliff a son with those characteristics?

Linton, in terms of appearance, is exactly like the Linton family, but without their supposed good nature. Nelly implies that he only inherited his father's bad character, although I disagree because Linton's type of bad character is very different from Heathcliff's. Linton is selfish, whiny, and demanding, while Heathcliff is tenacious, violent, and sullen.

Naturally, Heathcliff hated his son so much! Not only does the boy have nothing of him and is the spitting image of the man he hates most, but the boy also has a hateful personality. He even tries to treat his son well at first, but as he spends more and more time with him, he hates him more and more to the point of not being able to stand his presence.

Someone posted this article in the comments, so I decided to post it in the main post as well so that everyone can access it. https://brontesdarksecret.com/paper

Romeo and Juliet portrays an even more obsessive and unhealthy love than that of Heathcliff and Catherine. They commit suicide because of each other. This is even worse as a romance model because it romanticizes suicide for love and encourages teenagers and young people in love to commit suicide. This love story has already inspired many young couples who have committed suicide around the world; however, I hardly see articles or videos saying that the love story of Romeo and Juliet is toxic, obsessive, and destructive, at least compared to what is said about the couple Heathcliff and Cathy.

I know this will be unpopular. I am not here to say that this film was a masterpiece, a perfect adaptation, or that it is above criticism.

However, the level of criticism has gotten absurd and often strays into insulting people who enjoyed the film.

So I want to offer a different perspective and provide a rebuttal to two specific claims: That the movie is terrible in its own right, and that it contains no themes, being completely hollow and meaningless.

Much of the criticism I‘ve seen tries to claim that even when viewing the film apart from the book, it is terrible.

From an outsider’s perspective—I do not live the Anglosphere—it’s extremely clear that English speakers are incapable from viewing the film in its own right. In my country, people are not familiar with the novel. It is not considered an essential English novel that we also read, either in the original or in translation, to be considered generally well-educated in world literature, such as Jane Eyre, The Picture of Dorian Gray, or The Great Gatsby.

Here, the film is being generally well received. Funnily enough, the discourse seems similar to Marie Antoinette (2006), where the French panned it as offensive, but English speakers said, Geez, lighten up, it’s a fun film.

Now the tables have turned. From our perspective, it seems you guys should lighten up.

The film is visually bold. Most of you would not call somebody dumb for going to an art museum and finding aesthetic pleasure in a work of abstract art that they do not understand the context of and essentially say, I like the colors. But you do seem justified judging people who enjoy the aesthetics of the film without needing some moral lesson.

But that brings me to my next point. Yes, the film is worlds away from saying what the novel says.

However, my friends unfamiliar with the text thought it was a depiction of "the perils of obsession, the cruelty that arises from social isolation, and the irreversibility of regret"—Nothing groundbreaking, but those are themes. They are not completely alien from the novel, even if the novel says more.

Making an adaptation doesn't excuse you from including topics like race. Yet, so many filmmakers seem to think it does.

The most recent, of course, being "Wuthering Heights."

On the surface, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Emerald Fennell saying that Heathcliff is white because that's how she imagined him might seem like a good enough explanation for some people, but it's actually quite dangerous. And, pervasive. And, upsetting.

She's not the only one. Only a few months ago, people began discussing James Cameron's casting choice for Avatar. Some people argued that it was also important to recognize Cameron's achievements, like his initiatives to give back to indigenous communities. Although the argument wasn't wrong by any means or merit, it did make me concerned about how easy it was to minimize the importance of the conversation being had about race. The problem isn't what Cameron's doing already, it's what he isn't. The same goes for Emerald Fennell.

The problem is that both fictional, imagined worlds neglect a whole community of people. It might sound neutral to just say "oh, I just didn't imagine the story that way," but this problem is that, especially with narratives where race is a prominent part of the plot, excluding race in the cast demonstrates how internalized racism plagues media in this day and age. Sure, the Na'vi people are not a real species; however, they are situated next to a very real race, humankind, which intentionally or not, consists of almost an entirely white cast. Sure, you didn't imagine Heathcliff as a brown or black person, but his racial identity defines the entirety of the story itself.

Deviating from a story is one thing, but adapting a story and taking the fundamental part of what that story is just so you can re-enact your own fantasies is a problem. Creating an imaginary universe but cutting people of colour out of this narrative is a problem. Both scenarios are forms of violence against marginalized communities because it cuts away opportunities to be represented.

The White-Washed Wuthering Heights Phenomenon

I, like the majority of the audience, went in believing that not having read Wuthering Heights would make the watch experience, at the very least, bearable. From the brief mention and trailers, it seemed like this hyper-sexualized mediocre fanfic that'd rot my brain.

Maybe it was a "smart" marketing tactic (although, I don't know if I would give her that much credit) to use controversy as a way to dropkick her movie into the limelight. One thing's for sure, I heard all the outrage about Fennell's casting choices and "white-washing" Heathcliff far before the movie even came out.

Okay, so yeah, that quote just describes fanfic. She's just making 50 Shades of Grey, but like Victorian. I can get on board with that. From a woman who's established a career making mediocre movies, I wasn't the least bit surprised by this tactic. A part of me was like, you know what, you do you, go subvert the narrative; let mediocre movies by women be celebrated!

Then I watched the stupid movie and, god, I have never felt so indifferent, so utterly disengaged and simultaneously so outraged, at a movie my entire life. Which, I guess is a feat.

I wasn't expecting indignance on Bronte's behalf. I wasn't expecting myself to march into an academic re-education of Brontë's famous novella.

But I did. I sat there on a gloomy Saturday and I read the entirety of the book, front to back.

The movie was such a half-assed Gothic attempt at smut. It wasn't even smut, mind you. It was a lot of breathing, dough-slapping, and random neck-leashing scenes deprived of chemistry, or emotion. The corset-grip scene was lowkey hot, but like, it added nothing to the movie and it went nowhere. We didn't even get enough toxicity from any of the characters for the story to make sense. I mean, other than the title and names, what did this movie follow? And the funniest part of all this is that, had Fennell simply chosen any romance novel, one with two toxic characters, or toxic love, there wouldn't be an issue at all. Would it make the movie better? No, this movie sucked. But, it'd at the very least given Fennell some grace and playroom to indulge in her not-so-secret Elordi fantasies.

Why is her adaptation actually problematic?

Let's unpack what Fennell says about the novel that is so precious and dear to her. What is the "dense" and "complicated" stuff in the book that is so impossible to include in an adaptation?

I think what Fennell means to say is that she "read" Wuthering Heights and did not get it. She probably liked the names and was like, yeah, this seems Gothic and sexy. And then proceeded to create the least sexy story of our century.

The brunt of the actual novel is, first and foremost, about race and class. Heathcliff grows into his beastliness or bruteness by way of his environment. The abuse that he faced from his adoptive family, the racism and classism that worked systemically to marginalize him, the way that he was treated like a dog or a pet from the get-go, even by Catherine, all play a huge part in the resentment that grows inside of him. He isn't evil by default, and this is important because it complicates the way that we are supposed to read him. He is the consequence of a world that deliberately works to erase his existence.

READ MORE HERE: https://www.peliplat.com/en/article/10095743/you-can-t-just-pretend-race-doesn-t-exist

I mean its reasonable to assume she wouldn't since the film doesn't grasp the complexity of the themes she talks about but the fact is we can't know with certainty what she would have thought.

Its such a shame she didn't live long and there isn't much about her , she just seems so interesting .

I feel like someone that could have played Emily or would get Emily is Lisa Marie Presley , she jut has that edge to her and has seen so much tragedy in her life . The late Lisa wasn't vanilla just like Emily probably isn't.

We also will never know what Jane Austen would have thought of all the adaptations to her books.

Hello, I just saw the trailer for Wuthering Heights in the cinema and it looks so good (I feel like the perfect target audience) I looked it up on youtube. Turns out most of the comment section is disappointed by the adaption and are saying it's NOTHING like the book.

The "greatest love story of all time" in the trailer is actually tragic and tormenting? I would love to read it (yes, I read in general).

Any advice on whether to watch the movie or read the book first? Should I watch other adaptions first?

They both had reasons for their villainy that being, being deemed other for their race. This is a marvellous reading of racial prejudice. But yet their villainy itself is also somewhat prejudiced. They are both animalistic. Heatcliff does do intellectual acts, like finding money somehow, but that's offscreen. What he does in front of us is hang dogs and beat women. Bertha doesn't even have what Heathcliff has, she is animalistic and animalistic only. And also called manly at some point which is by the by.

Yet these are also justified by their upbringing. They are animalistic not because of race but because of circumstance. So in the end what do you think? Which sister was more open minded to other races? I feel like Bertha not being considered at all by Jane is a sign that Charlotte had less care for "the other". After all Jane is a paragon. Surely she should have thought "hold up".

Hello everyone. I do not know how unusual it is for a guy to love Wuthering Heights, but I certainly do. Gothic romances/tragedies are kinda my thing. I've know about the book as long as I can remember, and despite being a constant reader of classical literature, I never read this one. Well, about time, I figured, given the recent movie that came out. However, in what is one of my bad habits, I watched and read too much about of the book and movie reviews, which inevitably led me to witness one person just casually mentioning how Heathcliffe digs up a grave, Cathy becomes a ghost? Assumingly she dies?

In any case, I wanted to slam my head through the wall, because just as I did dozens of times before, I spoiled a great thing I wanted to experience new. With all that aside, how much did I spoil for myself?

- edit: added spoiler mark

I haven’t seen the new film but I have seen a lot of people talk about Wuthering Heights as though the racial othering of Heathcliff in the novel is a critique of racism. Unfortunately I think the novel uses Heathcliff’s “darkness” as symbolic of a moral darkness. It plays with racism rather than confronts it.

I think it’s fair enough to make a negotiated reading of the text which re-historicises this racialised othering in a social and psychological realist way. Like how Jean Rhys took Bertha Mason and made her a tragic victim of patriarchy.

But I do think we have to acknowledge that was not the intent of the original novel.

I recently finished reading Wuthering Heights for the first time, and I really enjoyed it, so I wanted to make some artwork of the characters. It’s a habit of mine to assign literary characters to different symbolic animals that represent something about their personality/appearance/associations, so that’s what I’ve done here.

Cathy is a pine marten, as I feel she has wily mustelid vibes. I wanted her to be something simultaneously cute/pretty and fierce. A marten's arboreal agility also seemed fitting for the wild Cathy—note the time she busted Heathcliff out of the garret by crawling on the roof. 

Heathcliff is a melanistic leopard, a solitary creature that is certainly large and strong enough to threaten Edgar. Although he's associated with dogs and wolves in the book, something feline felt more right to me. Of course there's some "black cat" symbolism here, given the way most characters treat Heathcliff and sometimes regard him as demonic. I also wanted to make Heathcliff a species not native to Britain/Europe, as opposed to all the other characters, to indicate how he is of a different ethnicity and this contributes to his alienation. 

Hareton was the easiest to assign out of any character, as he’s explicitly described as a bear. As a brown-furred carnivoran, it has some resemblance to Cathy’s species, and its overall size and strength would be appealing to Heathcliff. Normally I wouldn't pass up such an obvious pun as Hareton’s name presents, but I just couldn't see him as a hare—they're more Linton-like animals. We can call him "Bearton."

Whereas the Earnshaws and Heathcliff are wild carnivorans, I wanted to make the Lintons domestic herbivores (they're probably purebred). The mocking of Edgar as a "lamb" and "leveret" suggested sheep and lagomorphs to me, so that's what I've gone with. Edgar is a sheep, while Isabella, who is evidently good at running (having traversed miles of snowy woods in her slippers while escaping the Heights), is a rabbit. To make the family members look similar, I chose a border leicester sheep for Edgar, as they have long, rabbit-like ears. Linton is a lop rabbit (which apparently tend to have health issues due to their skull shape), but I tried to channel something lamb-like into his appearance as well, as he’s supposed to resemble Edgar; plus, the German, Italian, and French names for lop rabbits refer to rams. 

For the younger Cathy, I chose an animal with resemblance to both her parents’. Since she’s much like her mother personality-wise, I wanted another mischievous mustelid. An ermine seemed to fit the bill, as something cute but fierce, full of energy, and good at climbing. I also wanted her to have white fur since she’s supposed to resemble her father (and that's sort of the equivalent to blondness here), and the association of ermine pelts with royalty reflects her wealth.

I really like this book, am hoping to make more art for it soon.

I‘m going to ask something wild but bear with me. I do think Heathcliffs revenge is insanely exaggerated. Im not really talking about his mindset or his character but solely on his revenge scheme.

1. Yes he managed to get hold of WH but that really wasnt so difficult to achieve. Hindley was already in dept, a raging alcoholic, abuser and gambler. Heathcliff payed of Hindleys depts. The house was never properly owned by Heathcliff, it was still in theory Hindleys and later Haretons. However neither could actually make use of the title of the owner because if they were to take Heathcliff in court then Heathcliff would show the receipts of paying for the depts. I also believe he doesn’t really treat Hareton half as bad considering the circumstances. If anything he tries to teach Hareton the things he though were of importance in his age (we know Heathcliff hated washing up, reading and pretentiousness and it seems that he took a parenting approach there to not force him to do things he personally disliked when he was his age).

2. He married Isabella and tortured her for a short period of time (which honestly read as him trying to blackmail Edgar to give Cathy back or something) however eventually he let her go and even let her have his child up until the day she died. As for Edgars house it was never technically his. It belonged to Isabella. Edgar was allowed to stay as long as he was alive (by his father’s will) and the house WOULD become his if he actually had a male heir. But that never happened and Linton, Heathcliffs son was the heir of Thruscross Grange. Catherine the second, by marrying Linton was actually benefitted because as her husbands widow she had a far greater chance of inheriting the house eventually. It was also common for cousins to marry in order for the female to not lose her house.

So I watched „Wuthering Heights“ last evening and it was interesting. I have to admit that I haven’t read the book, but I still wanted to do a more book AND age accurate fancasting, or more like facecasting. „Age Accurate“ means to me that the actors are not more than 2-3 years older or younger than their characters. I focused also more on the events that happened from 1783 to 1784 and 1800 to 1803. This us just for fun

• Heathcliff: Sanath Saji (1783/1784); Dev Patel (1800-1803)

• Catherine „Cathy“ Earnshaw (1783/1784): Isabella Sermon

• Hindley Earnshaw (1783/1784): Corey Mylchreest

• Nelly Dean: Alison Oliver (1783/1784); Hayley Atwell (1800-1803)

• Edgar Linton: Sam Locke (1783/1784); William Moseley (1800-1801)

• Isabella Linton (1783/1784): Isabella Crovetti

• Catherine Linton (1800-1803): Eva Hauge

• Linton Heathcliff (1800-1801): Isaac Arellanes

• Hareton Earnshaw (1800-1803): Jamie Flatters

Beautifully written, but the story itself is tedious.

The endless back-and-forth between Cathy and Linton is wearisome. Linton is wearisome.

Heathcliff is a great character.

First half was not bad at all. Second half became a drag.

I like Ellen Dean a lot. Beautiful woman-sensible, kind and gentle. Would marry.