After reading the section on feminist criticism I couldn't help notice both ideal perspectives, as well as some that seemed uniquely real. This naturally made me curious about what Lyn Pykett might have to say from a feminist perspective on Wuthering Heights. She begins with an excerpt, and thereafter immediately dives in. Her evaluation is thorough and well organized. The totality of her article is to examine both Catherines, and determine how each came to define themselves. This allows her to suggest which is meant to be the better of the two.
As she points out, the first Catherine seeks her identity in the status quo by choosing what appears to be the rational, and prudent path. However, her story is unique in the sense that the purpose is to understand the consequences of such a choice, and evaluate exactly how rational it is. The question becomes nearly equivalent to asking how much freedom should a woman give up for the sake of security. In the case of the first Catherine, she makes the decision to compromise freedom for security, and ultimately suffers because of it.
Cathy shares a similar story in terms of the decisions she is forced to make, but her history is the opposite of her mother's which has uniquely positioned her to perhaps make a better decision. Her mother's childhood was one of freedom as opposed to security. In contrast, Cathy has grown up rather privileged, and yet extremely protected with many limitations on freedom. It is ultimately for this reason that Cathy is eventually able to choose the path of passion and forget about prudence.
It is interesting how personal the subject is despite the somewhat removed nature of the story. I believe many of the choices presented to the characters are the same choices faced on a general scale, and yet the specificity of the story allows a different interpretation on how a given person should respond to those choices. On the surface it seems to suggest that love and passion triumph over rationality and prudence. I would suggest that at its core is not the abolition of rationality, but merely a reinterpretation of what is rational.
I think exploring the idea of security vs freedom is not only a great doorway to the whole of feminist literature, but a reflection of the times we live in. Must you give up security in order to attain freedom? I don't think Cathy necessarily gives up freedom in the end. She is strong, assertive, and gets what she wants.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a question of rationality as much as it is a question of "why not be irrational?" Being irrational, at least irrational in the eyes of a third party, may seem perfectly rational to someone as it does to Cathy. Perhaps being "irrational" is the most rational path you can take.
Your point about giving up her freedom is a good one and I think it is pivotal to the story. Had the elder Catherine been able to give up part of her freedom, (which is what she essentially tried to do in the first place,) I think she might have lasted longer. I do believe Edgar would have been more lenient in that sense had her choice of freedom not be linked to Heathcliff.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah, above, in that Edgar - who seems to be a rational character - would have been more lenient, but the problem was that her freedom WAS linked to Heathcliff. There really was no other choice simply BECAUSE her choice was linked to him. I think were it not, she wouldn't have wanted any freedom to begin with; she wouldn't have cared. The problem itself wouldn't have existed if it weren't for Heathcliff, thus Edgar's leniency is almost irrelevant.
ReplyDelete