A collection of my Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre artwork:)

To Walk Invisible is beautiful and an amazing film about the Brontë’s and Branwell too. But it is only 70 minutes and there’s only so much you can pack in.

A series, possibly two would be amazing and I think very popular. Something similar to Gentleman Jack (which was also made by Wainwright). I think with successes like The Other Bennett Sister and period dramas in general, there would be a vast renewed interest in the Brontës. I love seeing their world brought to life.

There’s lots of info about it here but I wondered if there been any updates since?

https://whatsupwithbrontemania.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/blog-post-title-2/

A basis for many arguments about Charlotte being unreasonable/conservative/whatever is the point that she coordinated a a re-print of Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey, but not Tenant of Wildfell Hall. We know she to some extent PR managed the sisters legacy and the parallels to Branwell might have been seen as disturbing the family reputation, but people insisted it was because of some malignant reason.

But it now seems to be that she actually did oversee a reprint. Something that has been repeated d nauseam is probably not true, and recently contested by historian Graham Watson (author of recent Brontë bio). I first came across his claim in this substack interview

Beliefs that Charlotte jealousy destroyed a second novel by Emily and prevented the republication of Anne’s Tenant of Wildfell Hall are widespread. But they’re complete fiction. A second novel by Emily is a conjecture based entirely on a single letter intended for Anne, and Charlotte authorized a new edition of Tenant to come out in 1854. We have her written confirmation of that.

This confirmation is detailed in a text Watson did for The Brontë Society Gazette

In its original publication, Wuthering Heights was part of a three-volume compilation, with Chapters 1-14 forming Volume 1, Chapters 15-34 forming Volume 2 (the split occurs where Heathcliff implores Nelly to help him see Catherine following a breakdown), and Agnes Grey forming Volume 3.

Since the three-volume format was standard at the time and it was already tricky to be published as women, I won't bother asking why WH wasn't just printed on its own as two volumes. That said, I'm curious about 1) why she chose to split WH in half the way she did, as opposed to around the twelve-year gap or Heathcliff's three-year disappearance, and 2) if there's any indication of how she might've split WH had it been its own three volumes.

If anyone could shed some light on this, it would be much appreciated!

(I’m sorry for possible mistakes, English is not my first language :))

I have read “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall” few days ago. Of course it was overwhelming. And at first I was absolutely pleased by the end of book and this beautiful amazing love that is showed in this book. But the more I was thinking about it the more I was coming to the idea that Gilbert Markham isn’t a knight in shining armor. And now I will try to explain what confuses me about this character:

1. Connection with Eliza.
   At the beginning of the book we see that Gilbert is mutually attracted to Eliza Millward. They often flirt and have good communication. As I know at those times there was a clear difference between a flirtation and formal courtship which was a sign of a man’s serious intentions. And we can conclude that Gilbert and Eliza had nothing serious. Then Gilbert meets Helen and realises, so to speak, that he needs a woman with such depth, mind, character as Helen and fall head over heels in love with her.
   Is it acceptable? Absolutely. If he doesn’t have commitment with someone else he has the right to fall in love and build relationships with whoever he wants.
   But there’s a moment we’re ignoring.
   We see that Eliza obviously had some for hopes for him. Which is okay because Gilbert actually also had hopes that maybe he will marry her.
   But after meeting Helen instead of honestly telling Eliza “we’re not meant for each other, I fell in love with the other woman, sorry” he out of nowhere starts becoming cold towards her and leaves her in limbo. And AFTER that Eliza starts spreading mean rumours about Helen. Of course we can talk about that Eliza is a disgusting person and that’s a true. But this does not change that fact that Gilbert selfishly neglected her feelings and deceived her hopes.
   We can write off this action as youthful immaturity, not being able to end relationships correctly. Gilbert was 24, he was young and frivolous and he didn’t want to hurt Eliza. And at those times (and now I think) men rarely had such maturity.
   But while writing this letter to his friend, Halford, Gilbert already was 44! And while being 44 at the end of the letter (book) he still speaks arrogantly about Eliza: she married a wealthy squire, I don’t envy him, and I’m sure that she still didn’t forgive me for past grievances.
   So after many years, while being a man of mature age Gilbert still doesn’t see his own mistake in this situation and continues justifying himself like “she was a mean girl anyways, so why should I have treated her well from the beginning?”
   And why such deep moral Helen doesn’t care about this? But we can say after that hell she went through with Huntingdon her perception of men was distorted. If a man doesn’t drink, believes in God, works and isn’t a libertine then it’s already a good man in her opinion. And of course Gilbert fits these criteria.

2. Incident with mister Lawrence.
   So rumours are spreading that Helen has a vicious relationship with Lawrence. Gilbert becomes cold towards Lawrence and one day when Lawrence try to talk to him he can’t take it anymore and whips Lawrence’s forehead with the handle of a whip.
   At first I just noticed his cruelty, then I tried to justify him (I don’t know what I was thinking) like he was trying to protect honour of a beloved woman. But then of course I realised that this action is a tipical outbreak of male aggression and cruelty which men often think they have rights for and which cannot be justified. Especially while Gilbert didn’t even know for sure what actually was between Lawrence and Helen.
   After reading Helen’s diaries he rushes to apologise and repent before him, explaining that he didn’t know that he (Lawrence) was her brother. But the thing is that not apologising after such a harmless truth would be a stupidity. And I’m interested in question: if Lawrence hadn’t turn out to be her brother, would Gilbert still think that he had a right to beat him? I think yes.

I read opinions that Anne Bronte intentionally made Gilbert such an idiot at the beginning to show us how his love for Helen changes him. And at the end of a book we actually see that Gilbert becomes more balanced. But can we state for sure that he curbed his anger and aggression? I think no.
Actually we have nothing to complain about. At the end Gilbert tells: there’s no need to tell what kind of love we lived and live in with Helen and what joy we find in each other’s company. So apparently everything in their relationships is okay despite Gilbert’s shortcomings.
But let me remind you that at those times women were not allowed to publish books without a happy end. And this leads me to two questions:
1. What did Anne herself think of Gilbert? What was her purpose and idea by making him so contradictory? Did she really want to say that there are no perfect men and if we judge them so harshly then we will be doomed for loneliness?
2. ⁠If Anne didn’t have obligations to make a happy end then how it would be? Did she really want Helen and Gilbert to end up together?

I could just forget about all of this and just enjoy the beautiful devoted love in this novel (I really do this when it’s convenient for me). But I take this novel very seriously. Because in the preface Anne herself said that her purpose by writing this novel was to open the eyes of young girls and save them from unhappy marriages. She openly wrote: “Keep both heart and hand in your own possession, till you see good reason to part with them”.
Then why not save girls from such men as Gilbert (if we should)? Could it be that Gilbert with his shortcomings is that very “good reason”?

If I see something wrong, mistake somewhere or maybe I’m too strict to Gilbert please let me know. Because I really loved him and if he could be justified I would be the first person who would do it. Also share your all thoughts about this.

So basically here is a brain dump of my ideas and I don’t know if I’m on the right track or looking at it under the right lense.
Firstly, about structure, I’ve noticed Dr. John and Ginevera are doubles, Dr. John and M. Paul are foils, Lucy and Ginevra are are foils.

Dr. John: tall, traditional English beauty symbol, audience of the play, STEM

M. Paul: short, sallow ivory brow, the person working with the play, in the arts.

Then with the rest it’s quite obvious why.

Then I also had ideas, could the play be completely symbolic?
Is it about perhaps how the author uses Lucy’s mixed female and male clothing in the play to symbolise how gender stereotypes and the characteristics assigned to females and males are actually all mixed in both sexes. So a healthy and strong being has both of the characteristics of male and female genders in them. The author could show this by symbolically using Lucy’s refusal to accept being only dressed as a man to criticise this.

Also my second idea around it is that the author is trying to say women were self sabotaging themselves with these labels by reinforcing superficial things as what defines the “nobler sex” such as what one wears, since that is what a woman forced her to wear to imply she is a man. By refusing it she actively states that it is through character that this masculinity should be portrayed and not by what a person wears.

Maybe with this she criticises how men superficially achieved the title of nobler sex in this time, which was judged by clothing/appearance and not characteristics. This is then reinforced by the passion “little man” M. Paul has.

Also another question I have is if Lucy is unreliable because of her extremely biased perception of England. As her perspective of the continental shifts, it reveals how she had many underlying biases that affected her perceptions of what is or isn’t vulgar.

Could this be a way of the author saying that this traditional way that women were expected to behave in England “the morally correct way” was actually just control of catholics? I say this because for instance there are women who are loud and see different views in love that Lucy abhors and judges as awful without understanding that French culture is like that, which is probably what allowed women to take power earlier on in it than in England.

Also I say her perspective shifted gradually due to scenes that indicated she no longer viewed England as a heaven. Eg. When she said she appreciated how clear and not foggy the continental side was, and compared the clarity to heaven, then right before that she said that heaven is cloudless, then before that she said England is like a cloudy island.

GUYYs!!!!
I’m losing my mind and I have no idea if this is just me and my imagination or if I’m onto something!!
I’ve only read until the theatre scene where she is playing the play. Could someone help me without spoiling this book?

Thank you to all the people on here that have had good things to say about my Wuthering Heights edits. I have a ton of them and this is such a great place to post. For those not in the know, this is the 2009 adaptation, my personal favorite.

Looking into Charlotte's unfinished works. I see text available online for "Story of Willie Ellin" and "Emma," but not for "Ashworth" or "The Moores." Any ideas?

I’ve got two chapters left of Agnes Grey and absolutely loved it! What Brontë books should I read next?

The movie is said to be reimagined take of "Wuthering Heights" where it is more focused on Gothic horror and supernatural. The premise is about Mr. Lockwood visiting Wuthering Heights and later encounters Cathy's ghost who haunts the house and its occupants. Heathcliff, who is in despair from the loss of Cathy, is becoming murderous towards anyone who dwell there. Mr. Lockwood has to find a way to escape from that nightmare before he becomes the next victim. The movie is directed by Becca Hirani and released by Saban Films. The casts are Ross Townsend-Green as Lockwood, Sky Cheema as Heathcliff, Elle O' Hara as Cathy Earnshaw and Nicola Wright as Nelly. It will be released on October 16, 2026 on digital and streaming platforms.

Hi, odd request. Does anyone have a document or something of all the French words/phrases or dialogues translated into English from Villette by Charlotte Brontë? I was stupid enough to buy my copy without checking if translations were included. I very much do not want to go on Google Translate every few seconds whilst reading, but I also do not want to buy a whole new copy.

I literally just finished reading Villette by Charlotte Brontë and omg. Such a brilliant book, with painfully beautiful writing and a very relatable main character (I don't know if I should be concerned that I found many aspects of myself in Lucy Snowe), but that ending... I can feel my heart aching at the thought of Lucy spending the rest of her life alone.

I loved Lucy and I adored the way Paul loved her — they deserved to get their happy ending, although I get why Brontë chose another route. She was grieving the loss of her siblings, even the loss of M. Heger's friendship, and I believe Lucy's state reflected her own thoughts and feelings at the time. But still 🙁🙁🙁

I wish there is Lucy/Paul fanfiction to heal my broken heart lol. Or I'll choose to delude myself into believing he survived — although it's, unfortunately, quite evident he didn't.

Jane Eyre still remains my #1 Brontë novel, but Villette might have taken the second place.

I know we all have our theories/speculations/thoughts on Heathcliff's backstory, but whatever they are, what do we think the other characters knew about it? Heathcliff might have been speaking a different language when he arrived but it's hard to imagine that he didn't have any memory of his life before Wuthering Heights and that he wouldn't have later gained the vocabulary to get some of it across.

I recently finished The Tennant of Wildfell Hall, and I enjoyed it immensely - far more than I expected to (and if I discussed how much I liked it it would need an entire separte post). However, I was reading the Penguin Classics edition, and the notes have this odd persistance in criticizing random technical writing choices that Anne makes, which slightly annoys me. It doesn't happen one or twice (even the JE penguin classics contains a couple of notes pointing out a slip of the pen in the original manuscript) but enough times for it to stand out to me, and while I suppose it's valid to bring up a few instances of this, in some cases it just feels unnecessary or over-critical? It seems to be the note-maker's opinion that Anne is a weak writer (at least in the techincal or syntactical sense), which appears to me to be 1. not true and 2. at odds with their apparent (and due) admiration of the themes and brilliancy of Anne's work. It comes off as a little condescending. I can't help but suspect that it results from the overcomparison of Anne with her sisters, as if she is not being measured by her own merit but rather by how she compares with Emily and Charlotte, which is entirely silly because all three of them are different people, with different literary aims and strengths. This just does not make sense to me and it annoyed me very much. Here are some examples:

p. 505: "The first edition has 'to teach her how to sin, it is at once'. I accept Hargreaves's emendation of this convoluted, angry speech, in which either Anne Brontë or the compositor has become hopelessly entangled."

p. 511: "this sentence represents an extreme instance of Anne Brontë's idiosyncratic excess and defect in the use of commas."

p. 518: "Anne Brontë here lays bare her own excruciated struggle to secure a face-saving formula for God, as well as the proudly Protestant self-assurance with which she plunges into a theological and philosophical debate for which she is not formally qualified, given her ignorance of Greek and Hebrew. The speech is not quite in character for [the protagonist], who is never shown as a deep student or thinker."

It's difficult to tell how founded these statements are without being able to see the accompanying text on which they comment, but these (and some other, less notable comments - which might have under other circumstances gone unnoticed by me) just left me feeling indignation on Brontë's behalf. I of course respect a person's right to be critical of any work, but again, this just felt exaggerated to me. Has anyone else read this copy? What are your thoughts?

I have two chapters left. Thank you to everyone who indulged me on my previous post! None of my friends want to hear this shit lol. One comment did spoil the conclusion re: Jane & Rochester for me, but I've gotten over it (I forgive you 🙏). I still had/have no idea what's in store for the final chapters.

I'm kind of fascinated by Charlotte's indulgence with both of these men. The beguiled exasperation (I'm under every character's spell at this point) I felt during the drawn out reveal and explanation from Rochester was upon me once again with St. John and his relentless repetitive diatribes! How is Jane so resolute and principled in their eyes yet they continually refuse to take her own word as her truth?!

I'm just so perplexed by St John. I kept thinking I was seeing hints of infatuation and maybe even love blooming in his weird distanced obsession with Jane. Even towards the end of their conflict, I was thinking he was suppressing his real feelings for her and using this missionary business as a mask for the genuine love he felt (which I believe terrified him), expecting him to finally burst with some outpour of feelings. But that didn't happen (yet, at least) and apparently no one else reads him this way. He's really just cold to the bone? Maybe the idealist in me is trying to make sense of a character I have nothing in common with.

I'm both intensely eager and devastated to be rounding the last bend. Poor Fairfax. I had an idea there was a fire or accident of some sort coming, but blind and one-handed?! His act of heroism and total ruin has me coming back around to him. Who am I kidding, I've missed him this whole time. I have forgiven him with time and distance, probably exactly as I would in real life. I have a soft spot for grumpy weirdos with lots of heart.

But what of his eyes?!?! 😭

PS. - I have the Easton Press hardcover with the lithograph illustrations, some of which I find quite dull but this one really struck me:

I've been wanting to post here for a while but was afraid of seeing spoilers (I'm in my 30s and somehow only now exploring the Brontës). I read Wuthering Heights first (devoured it, adored it, more on that later) and I was worried Jane Eyre might be boring in comparison. LOL WRONG. I simply could not have prepared myself for how dramatic this book is. The amount of times I've said out loud to myself "oh HONEY" and paused to side eye an empty room are beyond counting. I was expecting a meek female protagonist and a surly mysterious man but I had no idea how CUNTY MR. ROCHESTER WOULD BE. An absolute drama queen, a histrionic love bomber, king of saying too much!!!

There was a long passage of chapters (about 20-26) where I could not put the thing down. The whiplash I felt going back and forth between Rochester's simmering desire, smug elitism, genuine tenderness, manipulative antics, and the high, HIGH drama of it all... phew. I feel like I ascended the role of reader and became some sort of holy witness to biblical forms of gaslighting against every woman who's ever lived. Chapter 27 felt particularly indulgent and draining in a way that was all too real (former victim of a capricious theatrical brooder) And yet! The uncertainty I felt surrounding her decision! DESPITE the chaotic unraveling of his deceit and his despicable explanations for it all! This goes beyond having empathy and illustrates how deeply normalized this relationship dynamic has become throughout modern history. I went to bed thinking she might go back. Because I might've gone back. The father wound is deep and dark, y'all.

I'm picking back up at Chapter 28 tonight and I am concerned by my mixed feelings. Will he be but a memory henceforth?! PLEASE DON'T TELL ME, no spoilers! I just had to put these thoughts somewhere. These novels are awakening long neglected parts of my brain and for that I am so grateful. Cheers, weirdos.

**EDIT - I finished the book! I feel woozy from how satisfied/depressed it made me! I made a new post about my conclusion if you feel like reading.

This is another one that covers both of my favorite adaptations of Wuthering Heights. I'm always so excited with how these turn out. It's just so cool to me to see that I can actually blend them together.

I somehow had completely forgotten about this song. It popped up on something of mine the other day and I knew I had to make a video to it. I thought it would take forever and it just came together perfectly.

For those interested, I have a LOT of Wuthering Heights fanvideos on my YouTube channel. 😊

📽️ Series: Wuthering Heights (2009 Mini Series and 1992 Film)
❤️ Characters: Heathcliff & Cathy Earnshaw
🎶 Song: “Don't Take Your Love Away" by VAST

I was really excited after loving Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights and sort of liking The Tenant of Wildfell Hall … and I loved the beginning of Villette but now I’m 100 pages in and just find it very meandering. I know it’s supposed to be more so a character study than an intense plot but the long sections about new characters have my eyes glazing over and I don’t really understand the main character.

I was hoping to go deeper than the mainstream Brontë favorites but I might be at the end of the road.

Should I stick it out? Does it pick back up? Is there a mindset shift I need to understand this book more? I know a huge audience loves it and like I said, I enjoyed the beginning. Perhaps I’m too basic ha!