Victorians! discussion
This topic is about
Wuthering Heights
Archived Group Reads 2012
>
Wuthering Heights - Chaps. 1-4
I'd love to join this discussion. One thing about W.H. is, every time I read it again, I find something knew. I want to talk about Mr. Lockwood's dream later specially the second dream: someone has committed the 491st sin, the one that cannot be pardoned. (They were so scripture-thumbing back then, don't they? :) Want to talk about who committed it and what it is. I'll visit this again when others start to read.
Yes, Amalie, the discussion hasn't officially started yet. Marialyce and I are still posting all the folders for the overall Bronte discussions. We'll see you at the end of the week. Thanks for posting an interesting question right off the bat!
Shal we start commenting? These first chapters are astonishinig. Why would anyone of some sense want to go back to wuthering heights after haveing been receive that way the first time? And the second is even worse: the "supernatural" here comes strongly from the beginning; Cathy's ghost calls we don't really knw who - or why - at least if we try to forget old reading of this book and the several flm and series adaptations we've seen during our life!
What I can understand is the natural curiosity of Mr. Lockwood to know the story of all this mad people living like crazy!
I was reading something about the power of the narrative method -- bringing in Lockwood as a narrator, so that the characters themselves could be held more distant. We are discovering all these elements as a outsider not really knowing the actual nature of the characters. I think it brings up many questions too, to be told the story in this way. It probably made the novel more powerful. Have you thought of this LauraT? Lockwood is a bold character, isn't he? Not run-of-the-mill at all. So would you say he is what makes the gothic character of the novel -- an innocent person entering what turns out to be an odd setting of wicked, unknown, perhaps supernatural characters?
I think in the beginning Lockwood likes to think of himself as akin to Heathcliff or atleast initially he thinks he is. We start to be introduced to Heatcliff and as hard as I think Lockwood tries to understand him, he along with the rest of us never really do. What do you think of Heathcliff being compared to a gypsy? I am not sure this is intended to be a slurr. ....and the dogs...how scary but yet so,appropriate to set the mood."Catherine Earnshaw . . . Catherine Heathcliff . . . Catherine Linton. . . . a glare of white letters started from the dark, as vivid as spectres—the air swarmed with Catherines. . . ." We are introduced to Catherine through Lockwood. Do you think that her ghostly appearance makes this novel gothic? Do you think Lockwood represents us, the readers? Is Lockwood just bored, curious, or does he have some kind of link with the past?
Yes, I wonder if the gypsy description of Heathcliff helps to totally set him apart from the old, established family and the Lintons too. And maybe it makes him seem a little frightening also from the beginning. Yes, the "man-eating dogs" (I have just been reading a Bertie Wooster novel that uses this term, of course, in a humorous passage, but still) help to set that gothic mood. You've just rented a stately home (Lockwood has) and you arrive to visit your landlord and encounter the dogs, the odd people, the dilapidated Wuthering Heights buildings -- this is gothic too. Yes, then immediately Lockwood having this dream vision of Catherine (again a character introduced by a diary, and in an odd disconnected way).
Lockwood seems to be unconnected like he has never heard of the place or the people before.
Gypsies/Roma have been treated as outcasts and persecuted everywhere in Europe for centuries. My impression was that we are told that Heathcliff is actually of gypsy blood rather merely than being compared to a gypsy. Certainly, he is described as dark-eyed, dark-haired, and I assumed dark-skinned as opposed to the fair Earnshaws and Lintons. What do you all think?
I think Emily mentions that Heathcliff is of gypsy blood primarily as a way to indicate something of his character. He is the opposite of what a gentleman "ought" to be: he's rough and sullen, he's not neat in his dress or appearance, he's uncommunicative, and he's dark. Heathcliff is a Byronic hero and these traits are the hallmarks of such a hero. Emily was a reader of Byron and was no doubt, like her sister Charlotte, influenced by him. And for all I ought to despise rough and dark men, like Heathcliff, like Byron, I somehow feel drawn to them, and even sympathize with them. I know not everyone feels this way, but undoubtedly a lot of readers are attracted to this type of hero. I wonder what it is about him that elicits such a response?
You are probably right, Bea. I know That skin color was an issue for the Victorians. Blackness denoting inferiority was a widely accepted belief so the darkness of their skin automatically put them in the ranks of the inferior. Their nomadic life also made them appear to others as shiftless and unsettled. So in saying Heathcliff was gypsy like, he was being insulted on a grand scale I think.
I have not gathered the impression that Heathcliff is actually of the Romany culture. I believe his first description int he novel is "He is a dark-skinned gypsy in aspect,..." perhaps meaning in look but not in blood. And later descriptions of him as a youth are that he is "dirty, ragged, black-haired." I get the emphasis that he is of another type from these landed people -- drawing him apart by his look (dark, unclean) and he is even given only one name Heathcliff -- to mark him apart -- even by Earnshaw.He might have been actually of another ethnicity, but wouldn't that have been even more unusual for Earnshaw to have brought him home. It was unusual enough as it was. That is another of the mysteries -- no attempt at explanation of why the fact of Heathcliff to begin with -- it says that Earnshaw was too tired from traveling to explain! Why don't I ever get away with an excuse like that! haha
Emily, I see what you are saying. This is one complicated character -- because I do feel sympathy that he basically does come to Wuthering Heights as a child -- having lived through who knows what - to then maybe get kind of ignored by Earnshaw and then abused by Hindley. It seems like he maybe went from bad to worse. And as you read along, it is easy to question the whole environment anyway. They all seem a little strange -- almost like the "natives" there have some kind of streak in them anyway.
They all are as rough and unfinished as the landscape I think. There was certainly no nurture in their lives.
Emily wrote: "I think Emily mentions that Heathcliff is of gypsy blood primarily as a way to indicate something of his character. He is the opposite of what a gentleman "ought" to be: he's rough and sullen, he'..."I don't know, Emily. It's kind of like the obvious attraction of a Rhett Butler over an Ashley Wilkes. I have not read any of the Twilight books or other modern goth romances but is there some of Heathcliff in the vampire, etc. heartthrobs?
Sarah, I laughed at your comment on the lack of explanation for Heathcliff's presence. He is a man of mystery, certainly.
SarahC wrote: "He might have been actually of another ethnicity, but wouldn't that have been even more unusual for Earnshaw to have brought him home. ..."Sarah, I like this modern argument that Heathcliff perhaps is Mr. Earnshaw's illegitimate son. Whatever it is he remains as a mystery which kind a bring out the Gothic elements into the picture more, is he even human?
Bea wrote: "Gypsies/Roma have been treated as outcasts and persecuted everywhere in Europe for centuries. ..."
Absolutely! Victorians had a big issue with black skin. They thought white skin was superior. So one must wonder what EB is doing Is is making the "dark guy" the villain? Or is she more sympathetic?
As for Bree's question there, The Lintons' and Earnshaws' are contrasts in every way. The houses also serves the same role and as for the the people live in these houses, even for a shorter time, the personalities alter completely, according to the house's setting. Can't comment more without adding spoilers. But later we'll see this when Catherine and Isabella change homes.
SarahC wrote: "I have not gathered the impression that Heathcliff is actually of the Romany culture. I believe his first description int he novel is "He is a dark-skinned gypsy in aspect,..." perhaps meaning in ..."some characters say Heathcliff has gypsy blood but you're right it's not clearly given there in fact what I really find interesting is what Nelly tells about Heathcliff's ancestry.
Marialyce wrote: "They all are as rough and unfinished as the landscape I think. There was certainly no nurture in their lives."
Marialyce that's a very good point. The novel as I see, is the conflict of nurture vs nature. I first thought Emily B. siding with nature perhaps but after reading this novel for the 7th time or so, I saw it differently. I'll share it later on.
Did anyone noticed the connotations in Heathcliff's name. heath + cliff. He doesn't have a surname nor a Christian name, he is a part of wilderness/nature so obviously he's going to cause problems in the nurtured world.
Since we've started to read I'd like to bring back my early question: Meaning of Mr. Lockwood's dream, someone has committed the 491st sin. Who and what it is. I have my own idea just want to see what others think?Btw, I'd like to get everyone's focus into the the females in the novel like a feminist view on WH. Did anyone noticed Cathy asked for a whip while Hindley asked for a fiddle? This continues ladies :)
Amalie wrote: "Did anyone noticed the connotations in Heathcliff's name. heath + cliff. He doesn't have a surname nor a Christian name, he is a part of wilderness/nature so obviously he's going to cause problems in the nurtured world."Good point, Amalie. Heathcliff sometimes seems more like a force to me than a human being. There is definitely something wild and uncontrollable about him, like he is more nature's creation than a human creation.
I think as you do that the Rome/gypsy connotation of Heathcliff is definitly to distance him more from the "avarage" citizen; also the fact that he has not, and never will have, a surname, but only this particular name/surname so strongly linked with nature as Amalie noticed before tends toward the same direction.
Amalie wrote: "Since we've started to read I'd like to bring back my early question: Meaning of Mr. Lockwood's dream, someone has committed the 491st sin. Who and what it is. I have my own idea just want to see w..."From what I can gather, Amalie, when Christ talked about forgiveness, he said one could or should be forgiven or forgive 70X7 times. The number 7 connotes infinity. In Lockwood's dream, he commits the 491st sin, the one that there is no forgiveness for. Since I think the novel deals with many characters' unwillingness or inability to forgive, or even to accept within themselves that they could be forgiven, this statement seems an appropriate way to express it. Once you hit that 491st sin, you were unforgivable, you were lost, you were not redeemable. The darkness of your future was guaranteed, you were condemned to hell and hell was definitely on earth. (specifically at Wuthering Heights)
Bea wrote: "Emily wrote: "I think Emily mentions that Heathcliff is of gypsy blood primarily as a way to indicate something of his character. He is the opposite of what a gentleman "ought" to be: he's rough a..."Haha, well, it is almost comic, isn't it -- just bringing home a person, a child -- no explanation necessary. That is part of what I am thinking -- these people are odd...
Amalie wrote: "SarahC wrote: "I have not gathered the impression that Heathcliff is actually of the Romany culture. I believe his first description int he novel is "He is a dark-skinned gypsy in aspect,..." perh..."Amalie, in my message 11, I also brought up about the name -- very good point you made. And interesting to wonder the origin of the name. Does he have a namesake?
Amalie & Marialyce in message 20: SO much to ponder in that -- yes, the first impression of these characters in this section of the reading is either static or cold -- and soon just over in the next section -- downward spiral. Wow, will be ever be able to talk about this as we go along! :)
Marialyce wrote: "Amalie wrote: "Since we've started to read I'd like to bring back my early question: Meaning of Mr. Lockwood's dream, someone has committed the 491st sin. Who and what it is. I have my own idea ju..."What a great insight Marialyce! I, too believe, forgiveness and the inability to forgive is a major theme of the novel.
If Heathcliff is Earnshaw's illegitimate son, that makes him Cathy Earnshaw's half-brother. Do you think Brontë was going for an incest theme?
That would be quite something if that was a underlying theme. It would definitely explain a lot of the rage and the uncontrolled passion. Perhaps Cathy and Heathcliff suspected. I am going to be thinking of that as we continue. Intriguing.....Perhap Hindley knew for sure...
I take the 491st sin dream to be a kind of satire on the stern religion that Joseph follows. If one is to be forgiven for the first 490 (thanks, Marialyce, for that context!), then those strict Reverends will certainly find a 491st that cannot! In the dream, there are accusations flying both ways between Lockwood and the Reverend; each accuses the other. As far as I can figure out, the Reverend's sin is being tedious and boring, and Lockwood's is being fidgety and impertinent. The religion is as harsh as the surrounding landscape.Someone asked if Heathcliff had a namesake as an origin for his name. In the novel it mentions that he was named after an Earnshaw son that had not survived. But it is certainly an apt name, again related to the bleak landscapes that Emily so loved.
I personally would rather not subscribe to the idea that Heathcliff is Earnshaw's illegitimate son. I think that Heathcliff is entirely foreign (different; I don't mean from another country, although he does not speak English when he is brought home), and that it is his introduction into this world that will have such devastating effects. As Nelly Dean says when Lockwood asks of Heathcliff's history, "It is a cuckoo's, sir". The cuckoo lays its egg in the nest of another bird; when it hatches, it is accepted and raised by the other mother bird, even though it is of a different species (is species the correct word?). Heathcliff is the cuckoo in the Earnshaws' nest. From wikipedia: "The cuckoo egg hatches earlier than the host's, and the cuckoo chick grows faster; in most cases the chick evicts the eggs or young of the host species." Even Earnshaw's preference for Heathcliff over his own children seems to reflect this, as the cuckoo chick usually gets more attention and food than the other chicks. I never really paid that much attention to this remark of Nelly's in previous readings, but this time around I think it may be one of the most significant statements of the novel.
Thanks for that explanation of the cuckoo, Denise,...fascinating....this is why I love group reads.....I learn so very much...and find out so much that I would have missed...
Yes, thanks Denise...I agree with Marialyce, I learn so much from my reading buddies. I really love the tone of this book, really creepy, like many of the characters.
I'm embarrassed to say that I've never read this book, thanks to the Victorians for suggesting the Bronte reads! I have only read Anne but now I'm looking forward to Charlotte. Goodreads is so great, I wouldn't be on my Victorian reading streak were it not for this site.
This is not only my favorite Bronte novel, it is my very favorite novel! I hope you all really enjoy it!
It is mine too, Denise...
It wasn't may favourite victorian book, and still isn't, but I have to admit that I'm enjoying it much more that I thought possible!!!
Thanks for the cuckoo info Denise, that is very interesting.LauraT wrote: "It wasn't may favourite victorian book, and still isn't, but I have to admit that I'm enjoying it much more that I thought possible!!!"
100% agreed. I thought I was going to hate this book but I found myself perversely enjoying it. Perverse because my main interest in reading it was to find out what all these crazies were going to do next.
Marialyce wrote: "Amalie wrote: "Since we've started to read I'd like to bring back my early question: Meaning of Mr. Lockwood's dream, someone has committed the 491st sin. Who and what it is. I have my own idea ju..."I can see you've already read it and that's a really good point! Many don't forgive specially Cathy and Heathcliff. I didn't look at that side, thanks for pointing. I was reading it in another way. Just after he wakes up, he meets Cathy's ghost who says she's a "waif" roaming the moors for 20 years. A "waif" is something like a female outlaw so what's a crime or the sin? (view spoiler)
Denise wrote: "I personally would rather not subscribe to the idea that Heathcliff is Earnshaw's illegitimate son. I think that Heathcliff is entirely foreign (different; I don't mean from another country, although he does not speak English when he is brought home..."I'm not someone who says "YES" to the argument that Heathcliff is Earnshaw's illegitimate son, but I wouldn't disregard it. Just think about it. Mr. Earnshaw just happens to find this orphan on the streets. The streets of the town he just happens to visit on a regular basis, leaving the rest of his family squarely at home. And Mrs. Earnshaw just happens to take an instant loathing to Heathcliff the minute he enters their house. And the way he brought him, hiding him inside his coat like a treasured secret.
Then as you've pointed out Mr. Earnshaw christen this foreign-looking foundling with his dead son's name. Why? and we know that Mrs. Earnshaw doesn't like Heathcliff, so the fact that she puts up with this robbery of her dead child's identity seems to make no sense whatsoever. Another argument is why doesn't Heathcliff say anything about his past life? Is it because he doesn't remember or is it because he doesn't want to betray Mr. Earnshaw, who is the only person he truly loved besides Cathy. Possibilities are there, right? :) We know as we learn later, Heathcliff is loyal as long as you don't betray him.
The argument I like about this is the book compares the harsh and violent landscape of the Yorkshire moors with the destructive passions of the protagonists. The lives and emotions of Wuthering Heights get disturbed after Healthcliff's arrival ( yes, your point is very true because now there's a cuckoo in the Earnshaws' nest) but looking at the other side, can't we suggest that Earnshaw's illegitimate son ( and the text is infused with themes of incest) creates a turmoil in the natural order of things which is why Heights is always in a turmoil?
There's one thing about W.H is that book full of odd coincidences and irreducible mysteries there are so many layers like an onion which is why this is one of the greatest novels ever written! The Bronte sisters may have lived in seclusion but their themes are anything but. They are not the "fragile little Victorian women" of Dickens. So who knows what they might have included underneath.
Very relevant points, Amalie. As I said above it would lend a basis for all the turmoil and raw emotion we find within the pages of this novel. Yes, those Bronte girls might have led what we think to have been a secluded life, but their topics of discussion in their books certainly lead us to believe these girls knew "more than their prayers." I think that this idea is wonderful, refreshing, and downright amazing considering the times they were born to.
Amalie wrote: "Denise wrote: "I personally would rather not subscribe to the idea that Heathcliff is Earnshaw's illegitimate son. I think that Heathcliff is entirely foreign (different; I don't mean from another ..."I think Mrs. Earnshaw doesn't like Heathcliff because he's an interloper. Her husband brought home some little orphan (who maybe she thinks is Earnshaw's son) and lavishes more affection on him than he does on his own son. I think any woman would feel affronted by such behavior. It was not usual for a man to just bring home any ragamuffin he found in the course of his travels.
I think Mr. Earnshaw gave him the name "Heathcliff" because he cherished his dead son, and he cherishes the new one. Heathcliff is a special boy, even as a young child, who need protection. Mr. Earnshaw can give that to him. Mr. Earnshaw was not particularly close with his own children, and perhaps he felt the opportunity for a second chance at that relationship.
As far as Mrs. Earnshaw protesting what her husband does, that would never do. Mr. Earnshaw had the right to do what he wished. Certainly he would not have listened to her anyway, no matter her opinions on the the boy, or his name. An as to Heathcliff remembering his past life, I would say he was a young child and probably has no real memories of it. I don't think he's hiding it, I think he's genuinely mystified.
Of course, anything is possible, especially with the Brontes, but I feel that Heathcliff is not Mr. Earnshaw's illegitimate son.
Marialyce & Amalie: I am starting to totally disbelieve in fragile Victorian women at all.. haha... but I see what you mean. Emily just made the point that a wife would not protest a husband's actions. Well, this is the Earnshaw family we are talking about -- they break the slate all together! Good point that Earnshaw may have been sentimental about the loss of an earlier child. I have been doing some family history studies and the loss of children in that era -- just constant really. I know it was a different time, but these were still humans and must have been affected by losing these children. I have a great great grandmother who some believe was just too fine to do anything. I have looked at the family history: she lived through the U.S. Civil War, lost children, and had children move hundreds of miles away never to see them again. I am thinking she had clinical depression rather than "fine ways."
Maybe the mystery of Heathcliff is very purposeful, so that we can bat around this turmoil/possible incest/wrongful inheritance stuff. Denise mentioned in a post above that Heathcliff did not speak English. Even that is unclear: the text says he was speaking incoherently when he arrived, but that is all we are told. It says he was like a gypsy, but again, not clear. Maybe we need to NOT know who this person is, to make the story work better, right?
Yes, this Emily Bronte - I am pretty in awe of her. I re-read the Lockwood/Cathy/491 sins dream sequence last night -- and I still don't know...? I just keep seeing poor Heathcliff crying and calling for her to come in! Geez.
I am even feeling sorry for the poor cat. Why does Lockwood call him Grimalkin - something from stories? Reading this book is a little like reading a book of very foreign origin for me -- a totally different world (and almost all my ancestors are British!). Again -- maybe this is what I am supposed to feel?
At the same time, I am laughing at Lockwood in the same scene: "Time stagnates here- we must surely have retired to rest at eight!" That sounds so like me complaining. I get the feeling Lockwood is not planning another stay at Wuthering Heights soon.
Amalie wrote: "A "waif" is something like a female outlaw..."I've always thought that a waif was a frail child (boy or girl), often homeless, but generally pathetic. I always think of the little match girl! Or Oliver Twist in his early years.
Amalie wrote: "Denise wrote: "I personally would rather not subscribe to the idea that Heathcliff is Earnshaw's illegitimate son. I think that Heathcliff is entirely foreign (different; I don't mean from another ..."Good points, Amalie. I think there is definitely room for both points of view! I agree with SarahC that the mystery behind Heathcliff is central to the story. We don't know his history before Earnshaw brought him home, (view spoiler)
My own thoughts on why Earnshaw brought Heathcliff home with him are that he is a kindly man (according to Nelly, although she also says he is strict), so he did not want to leave the boy on the streets, but that he is also a rather careless man, thoughtless of the possible consequences of his actions. I believe he says that he thought it would be easier to just bring the boy home with him than to spend any time or money on helping him there in Liverpool. Of course, it will certainly end up costing him more time and money to raise the boy! But he was only thinking in the moment.
SarahC wrote: "Marialyce & Amalie: I am starting to totally disbelieve in fragile Victorian women at all.. haha... but I see what you mean. Emily just made the point that a wife would not protest a husband's act..."I agree, Sarah, about the foreignness of this novel. It could be set anywhere where the landscape is wild and barren, where the wind blows bringing ominous tidings, and where civilized life seemed to have stopped. I think it is in its foreignness that er find so compelling. The characters are almost inhuman in a way I think. They are scary yet they draw as in even when we don't want to look or have anything to do with them. This is a scary book with scary characters.
SarahC wrote: "I was reading something about the power of the narrative method -- bringing in Lockwood as a narrator, so that the characters themselves could be held more distant. We are discovering all these el..."I think that's a really interesting point about the narrative style. Emily very astutely sets the story up so that we hear it second-hand, but from the perspective of someone who was very much interested and involved in the events. Like you said, this allows a certain amount of distance between us and the characters, and it also allows Emily to pick and choose what we see and how much we know. I find it interesting--and very different from a lot of the literature of the time--that we never see into the thoughts of the main characters. We know of their actions, but their innermost thoughts and desires are mostly being guessed at by the narrator--a narrator who has some very definite prejudices. As such, Nelly is an interesting mix between the cool-headed 'reliable' narrator, and one who is involved enough to be tempted to 'unreliablity,'--and is, therefore, a very useful and flexible character.
Marialyce wrote: "They all are as rough and unfinished as the landscape I think. There was certainly no nurture in their lives."Yes! I think that the comparison between the characters and the setting is very near the heart of W. H. The edition of the book that I am reading has an introduction by Charlotte Bronte, and she remarks that people who are unfamiliar with the area in which it is set are likely to think the characters very crude. Certainly, it seems that if all their childhoods had been more pleasant, things might have tuned out very differently.
Kara wrote: "Marialyce wrote: "They all are as rough and unfinished as the landscape I think. There was certainly no nurture in their lives."Yes! I think that the comparison between the characters and the set..."
I do feel that Emily and perhaps all her sisters felt that childhood predetermined adulthood. Nelly seemed to be the only caring person in their lives and at best that care was inconsistent because of her place in the household. These children seemed to be starved for affection.
"Terror made me cruel; and finding it useless to attempt shaking the creature off, I pulled its wrist on to the broken pane, and rubbed it to and fro till the blood ran down and soaked the bedclothes..."I find the above quote particularly gruesome. Lockwood had seen a child's face as the apparition and yet went ahead and did this. I know he said he was terrified, but this is awful I think.
Marialyce, I will talk more in next reading section about your message 44, but certainly Nelly is appearing the neutral character in the family -- not the exact word I am trying for but close. She closely embedded in the family but doesnt have the rivalry and jealousness, etc. going on. And it seems (and this is probably actually in next section) that Earnshaw's actions as he was in his last days made the siblings worse, and Nelly was apart from that. Yet she is so right there with them through all their turmoil. I agree with Kara's view that Nelly is relating this story very personally, so I think we have to consider her opinions in the matters, but also who better to tell this story? I want to say more about her to come too -- so interesting.
And yes, Marialyce, message 45, another friend and I were talking about the book the other night and that is the very moment in the book we discussed. It just is part of the violent undercurrent throughout the setting and the story. All I can think is that this dream must have been so real and driven Lockwood to so much terror that he fought back so, even against a child. But this is odd that it is just at the beginning of the story. Is this placed in as a foretelling of violence in the story? Was Lockwood the kind of person to just react this way, scared in strange settings making his dreams (or visions?) so intense? It raises questions for me. I am glad you commented on it.
SarahC wrote: "Marialyce, I will talk more in next reading section about your message 44, but certainly Nelly is appearing the neutral character in the family -- not the exact word I am trying for but close. She..."Maybe Emily is saying there is evil and darkness, fears and terror in all of us. It just takes circumstance to bring it out. I, too, think that terrifying scene is presented early on, Sarah. It right away establishes a character flaw in Lockwood I think (kind of puts him in their class)
Marialyce wrote: "Amalie wrote: "Since we've started to read I'd like to bring back my early question: Meaning of Mr. Lockwood's dream, someone has committed the 491st sin. Who and what it is. I have my own idea ju..."'Seventy times seven' symbolizes infinity in Christian terms. When one starts counting sins, they are thinking in superstitous or magical terms. In magic, everything is very mechanical and impersonal. Say the right words and get what you want, your past actions do not matter. The problem with this thinking is the fear that if you do one thing wrong, you do not get what you want, or worse. This is in contrast to a Christian worldview of interaction between a loving, understanding God and humankind. This dream seems to suggests that whatever Lockwood did in his life doesn't matter anymore, because he committed the 491st sin. Mercy is gone. Justice, which considers past actions, is also out of the equation.
Scott wrote: "Marialyce wrote: "Amalie wrote: "Since we've started to read I'd like to bring back my early question: Meaning of Mr. Lockwood's dream, someone has committed the 491st sin. Who and what it is. I h..."So, then he is doomed right, just like the rest of the people he is learning about.
I just wanted to add to these great ideas about Lockwood's dream. This is great discussion, but I am still wondering over it. My Norton ed. references the book of Matthew in the Bible where Jesus tells a story of a king and his servants. And the 70 x 7 is spoken of at the beginning. Lockwood's dream seems more about punishment, however the parable of Jesus connects to me more about how harshness or unforgiving acts can be perpetuated (if we don't make the right choice). In the Bible story it seems to talk of forgiving your fellow man of the thing you have just been forgiven for yourself. And as we go along in Wuthering Heights the characters are not backing off, forgiving, changing their path, but rather perpetuating the wrong that is being done to them. Maybe that is also a connection of the dream with the actions within the story.
(I know it is early in the discussion, so I don't intend spoilers, just saying that is where that theme may be going ultimately.)
Spoilers from this section of the reading may be found here.