Delving Deeper into Wuthering Heights (The Second Generation)

Here we are again. Check out my first post here. At the end of Part One, Heathcliff is devastated that his idol and focus of his deepest desire has died (although she'd arguably still be alive if he hadn't returned from his mysterious self-exile). Now he'll have to pour his passion into his secondary reason for living, which is demolishing the two houses of his lifelong antagonists and making himself master of their properties. 

The plot surely thickens for the second generation. 

1) Nelly's bias strikes again - with the younger Catherine.

She's the same prejudiced caregiver she was with the older Catherine, but in the opposite way this time. Nelly calls Cathy, 'the most winsome thing that ever brought sunshine into a desolate house,' yet describes the actions of a spoilt brat.

As a young teenager, Cathy Linton is horribly headstrong and entitled. She throws her father's name around with the obnoxiousness of a female Draco Malfoy (and has the same blond hair), expects people to kowtow to her, and treats Nelly's instructions as challenges to disobey. I think part of the blame for her imperious attitude must lie at Edgar's door, since he's brought her up in solitude. 

Never mind, the twists and turns of the plot tend to wean this trait out of her, and Cathy's saving grace is that she is an empathetic person. I think by the end she's humbled herself and is a far worthier recipient of the HEA that's in store for her. I'm glad Hareton takes a while to trust her change of heart toward him. She deserves to work hard for his affection, after the inexcusable way she always treated him. 

2) Heathcliff's relationship with the two boys is creepily calculating.

He is far more partial to his enemy's son than he is to his own. 'Twenty times a day I covet Hareton, for all his degradation,' he tells Nelly. It's an unexpected complication for Heathcliff. He now faces a choice between sticking to his great ambition to destroy the progeny of his mortal foe, or indulging his natural inclination to treat Hareton like the son he wishes he truly was.

The second option might actually prove to be the path of least resistance, but Heathcliff sets his teeth and chooses to follow through with Plan A. But he does so in such a devious way that Hareton grows up unaware that he's been duped and degraded by his surrogate father. Heathcliff loathed Hindley so intensely, yet he chooses to become Hindley in his plans for Hareton. 

('Now my bonny lad, you are mine, and we'll see if one tree will grow as crooked as another with the same wind to twist it.')

But Hareton never becomes as twisted as Heathcliff. He's clearly no fool. He surely must latch on to rumors of the truth and put two and two together. His name has been carved above the front door for a few centuries, after all. Indeed, Cathy, the girl he loves, is anxious to enlighten him, but he stops her mid-sentence, because it makes no difference to him.

 Hareton's blinkered attitude used to strike me as stubborn passivity. I used to wish he'd stand up to Heathcliff more on behalf of others, if not himself. Yet now I see Emily Bronte wouldn't write it that way, because that's really not what Hareton is all about. In a way, his stance makes him the greater, nobler man. Having lived all his life as the victim of Hindley's and Heathcliff's power struggles, Hareton simply decides that the revenge motif stops with him. Kudos to him for that. 

How about Linton, that querulous teenage invalid who his father detests, but chooses to put up with just for the triumph of seeing his own flesh and blood lord and master over the estates of his enemies. Yet when he finishes using the poor kid as a decoy to acquire both properties, Heathcliff is callously through with him. Won't even call Kenneth for a spot of palliative care when he knows Linton is dying. 

The thing I find hardest to believe is that Linton Heathcliff inherits none of his father's swarthy features whatsoever, but remains the palest of pale Lintons, even more flaxen-haired than his uncle and cousin. Surely Heathcliff's genetics would be stronger than that. Still I can see why Emily Bronte planned it this way, for the sake of her art, and since it is plausible, I'm willing to consider him a throwback.  

Fascinating family dynamics, hey? That gloating speech that Heathcliff spouts about the pair of young men is superb. 'One is gold put to the use of paving stones and the other is tin used to ape a service of silver.' 

And Cathy Linton gets romantically involved with both boys, at different times! Cousins falling in love was all the rage in the Victorian era. 

3) Joseph plays such a cool 'character' role.

Almost every reviewer I've read complains about his thick dialect to the point that their objections get a bit old, but I consider this elderly servant as a code to crack. When we study each line of his dialogue closely enough, it's possible to figure out his meaning ninety percent of the time. I admit on a couple of occasions I remained completely baffled, but I enjoy having to work a bit for our reading entertainment. 

I'm clearly in the minority here, and people who claim that Joseph's rambling dialect slows down the story make a fair point. But if we truly want to immerse ourselves in the country Yorkshire moors of the earliest nineteenth century, then Joseph is what we get. I'm willing to pause every so often, and sacrifice flow for authenticity. 

I'd urge anyone not to skim over Joseph's speeches, because they're well worth the effort it takes to figure them out. He's such a dour and parsimonious old crank. Nelly Dean calls him, 'the wearisomest, self-righteous Pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself and fling the curses on his neighbors.' As such, his vitriol deserves to be fully understood for a bit of morbid comic relief. 

4) Could Heathcliff and Nelly be considered friends?

I think they have a bond that probably stemmed from when they were young and she nursed him through measles. Nelly is Heathcliff's sounding board for some of the introspective turmoil that he just can't keep bottled up inside. And it's a good thing she is, or we'd have no story. Heathcliff, knowing how much she already knows, seems to consider Nelly a trustworthy confidante who'll keep his rambling to herself. (Not quite true, to say the least.)

She tells Lockwood (among many other things), 'He might have had a monomania on the subject of his departed idol: but on every other point his wits were as sound as mine.' 

Hmm, if you say so, Nelly. How about Heathcliff's pathological hobby of shaping the younger generation into replicas of his past history, with Hareton unwittingly playing his own role, Cathy standing in for her mother, and Linton representing his delicate uncle Edgar. It's a posthumous kick in the guts for Hindley, and also a brilliantly diabolical way of wreaking vengeance on Edgar, for marrying Catherine. Nelly would have to realize it's freaking bizarre, if she thinks about it.

But yes, they are sort of friends. Heathcliff's destructive shenanigans horrify her, yet Nelly can still bring herself to tell him, 'You'd better eat something.'    

Which brings us to the next question. 

5) What is the physical cause of Heathcliff's death? 

It can't have been starvation. A sturdy guy in his late thirties can easily fast from food for longer than four days or so without kicking up his heels. Perhaps thirst had something to do with it, because humans can only survive for three to five days without water, and Heathcliff refused to drink during that cryptic last week of his life. Incredible to think that even someone as manic and focused as Heathcliff wouldn't take a sip of water when they're dying of thirst. 

6) So who inherits the two properties? 

The young couple do, of course, although their inheritance is undoubtedly more convoluted than it seems on the surface. Heathcliff grumbles that while he still has the mental capacity to think of such things, he needs to fetch his attorney, Mr Green. Then he puts it off for another day, which turns out to be crucial. I'm guessing Heathcliff's intention would've surely been to keep Hareton and Cathy out of his will. 

The fact that Heathcliff's plan wasn't carried through doesn't mean that Hareton and Cathy automatically inherit the properties they were cheated out of. Surely in the absence of any stated heirs, Heathcliff's two properties would revert to the crown! I found a few excellent articles and book chapters on this very thing by far more legal savvy people than I am, which describe how affairs must be sorted for Nelly's 'two children.' That goes beyond the scope of this blog post but it's a fascinating topic, so here is a link I found. 

I'll just leave you with the striking, Gothic image of Joseph, kneeling beside Heathcliff's corpse, offering up a prayer of thanksgiving that the 'auld family' now have their rights restored to them. Joseph is jumping the gun a bit, but his confidence turns out to be rewarded.  

Whew, what a ride! I was delighted to find that rather than simply living up to my wonderful first impression, this re-read of Wuthering Heights has brought to my attention even more nuances. The story reinforces my original opinion. It's safe to say that Wuthering Heights is still one of my very favorite books. Now, if only Emily Bronte had survived for long enough to finish that second novel she was working on. 

As always, Wuthering Heights lingers strong in my imagination. If you'd like to read a short story I wrote to follow the end of Wuthering Heights under my fanfic pseudonym, click here.

Delving Deeper into Wuthering Heights (The First Generation)

It's 'Victober' the time of year many of us find ourselves in the mood for something nineteenth century and Gothic. I counted this among my favorite novels when I was a teenager. In the intervening years, other friends, relatives and acquaintances have claimed to detest this classic story as much as I loved it.

It's been a couple of decades, so I decided now is the perfect time to refresh myself in the guise of an impartial reader. My biggest question was whether or not it would stand up to my positive first impression. 

I'll split my fresh observations into two posts, covering each of the two generations of Wuthering Heights goings-on.

Look out for spoilers. This is a discussion rather than a review. 

Okay, here goes for Part One.

1) Lockwood is self-delusional and cannot read any signs whatsoever

Our first narrator likes to kid himself that he's an interesting, solitary sort of chap, which is why he makes an impulsive decision to rent a property such as Thrushcross Grange, in the middle of an inhospitable bog. (Sounds pretty appealing to me too.) Yet all his attitudes and actions proclaim that he is the exact opposite type of person. Any genuine solitary guy wouldn't go calling on his landlord two days running, especially when the second day is brewing up a doozy of a blizzard. 

I used to think the Wuthering Heights family were all uniformly unfriendly, yet now I perceive that Lockwood is super annoying for placing them in a position to have to either guide him home or shelter him for the night. They owe nothing to this pesky stranger with his banal small talk who lobs there uninvited. Even after just one visit from Lockwood, Heathcliff puts out vibes that he's not interested in having him come again, yet Lockwood ignores this and returns the very next day. What sort of clueless duffer does this sort of gatecrashing? 

Way down the track, when Lockwood is about to return to the city, Heathcliff offers lunch and tells him, 'A guest that is safe from repeating his visit can generally be made welcome.' 

2) Was Mr Earnshaw's long walk to Liverpool remotely suspicious?

Liverpool is sixty miles away, and it's not a market town, so why would a Yorkshire farmer have any sort of business there at all during August, which is harvest time at home? And why walk, since he keeps a stable full of horses? Is it really as straightforward as it seems, that Mr Earnshaw simply chances upon an abandoned orphan boy while he roams the city streets? 

I know some readers suggest that Heathcliff was actually Earnshaw's illegitimate child, given birth to by some anonymous gipsy mother. Was Earnshaw surreptitiously going to fetch him? That might be reading far too much into it, but this scandalous interpretation adds an extra lurid layer of incest to Catherine and Heathcliff's intense relationship. It's one of these questions we'll never know the answer to, but the speculation is fun. One thing is clear, Emily Bronte certainly provides no satisfactory reason for this middle-aged family patriarch to take off on foot to a faraway seaport. Does she want us to poke around in Heathcliff's possible origins? 

Personally, I find the face value idea that Heathcliff is a destructive cuckoo from nowhere is far more compelling. 'You must e'en take it as a gift from God, though it's as dark almost as if it came from the devil,' says the boy's new protector. 

3) The 'new and improved' Heathcliff has sold his soul to the devil.

Whatever he did during those mysterious three years when he went away, brooding over his wrongs at the hands of others was evidently a driving force. I love Heathcliff during his boyhood and adolescence, when he bears Hindley's injustice with such stoicism, and asks Nelly to make him look decent, if she possibly can. But his secret makeover into an impactful person comes at the cost of his soul. 

This dangerous young man, who is no older than nineteen or twenty when he returns, means dark business. He's decided that his life's calling, however long it might take, is revenge. Nelly says concerning Hindley and Heathcliff, 'I felt that God had forsaken the stray sheep there (at Wuthering Heights) to take its own wicked wanderings and an evil beast prowled between it and the fold.' 

Spare a thought for poor Isabella. She learns the hard way that just because a guy is sexy and hot, doesn't mean you can reform him and soften his heart. Heathcliff is no rough diamond (like Hareton). While the second Cathy eventually hits the jackpot, her aunt draws the short straw. 

4) Catherine uses tantrums and illness as weapons.

'Say to Edgar, if you see him tonight, that I'm in danger of being seriously ill.' She adds, 'I'll try to break their hearts by breaking my own.' Even though her freak-outs genuinely lead to physical sickness, they are nonetheless strategically planned, and used as means of gaining control of situations when she feels herself floundering. Bashing her head against the chair, tearing pillow fabric with her teeth, racing out in the pouring rain, it's all part of Catherine's arsenal to call the shots. 

Or maybe she just wants out. Being all things to all people has taken its toll. Social and mercenary thoughts of her future convince her that being the Lintons' household angel will be most to her advantage. Yet denying her real yearning, to run around wild and unfettered on the moors with Heathcliff takes emotional energy, especially when he too accuses her of selling out on her real desires. 

Perhaps throwing calculated hissy fits and falling sick is her unconscious desire for everyone to leave her alone. Incidentally, I think she really does value Edgar for his own sake. If Heathcliff hadn't shown up again, I think Catherine could've been content enough with her husband. He catered to her every whim, so why not? 

5) Nelly treats Catherine with passive aggression.

My word, this went under my radar as a teenage reader. Our main narrator admits that she never liked her young mistress after her infancy was past, and she's refined her own subtle way of letting it show. Nelly's weapon is staying calm and unruffled whenever Catherine tries her paddies on her. She coolly calls Catherine out for pinching her, tells tales on her, ignores Catherine's direct orders, and only obeys her when she feels like it. 

My youngest son used Nelly-like tactics on his sister. He'd say, 'Take a chill pill,' in an aggravating manner guaranteed to set her off even more. I can't help thinking Nelly's intention is similarly to press Catherine's buttons, whether she admits it to herself or not. (For example, when Nelly reports that Edgar is calmly reading his books, her aim seems to be to rub Catherine's face in it.) How frustrating for a volatile diva like poor Catherine, when the person who's supposed to be her loyal employee treats her with very thinly veiled scorn. 

When Edgar says, 'You knew your mistress's nature and you encouraged me to harass her,' he's not completely wrong. Nelly presents herself as a peacemaker, but I think at heart she's a stirrer. 

6) Does Heathcliff murder Hindley?  

I believe Emily Bronte intends to set our suspicion antennae twitching. Even though Heathcliff insinuates that Hindley basically committed suicide by drinking himself to death in one sitting, Joseph's aside to Nelly is telling. He mutters, 'Ah'd rayther he'd gone hisseln fur t' doctor! Ah sud uh taen tent u' t' maister better nur him - un he warn't deead when Aw left, nowt uh t' soart.' (Translation: I'd rather he'd gone himself for the doctor. I should've taken care of the master better than him - and he weren't dead when I left, none of the sort.)

 It's easy to imagine that Heathcliff snatched the opportunity to suffocate his foster brother with a pillow, or something equally sneaky and underhanded.

(John Sutherland, in his essay entitled, 'Is Heathcliff a Murderer' suggests that a 27-year-old man with Hindley's robust Earnshaw constitution would be hard pressed to drink himself to death within a few hours.) Surely Heathcliff's accusation of suicide is off the mark anyway. I highly doubt that Hindley would choose that stage of his life to shuffle off his mortal coil, when he's so anxious to win back his property for Hareton's sake. Can you imagine him opting out of the mess, knowing full well that his son will be a beggar in the hands of his enemy? 

But that's not to say he didn't top himself accidentally, by being his normal pathetic, pickled self. Once again, it's impossible to tell for sure. For a person with Hindley's habits, death by accumulated alcohol poisoning doesn't sound unreasonable. Perhaps he's not all that different from his sister. 

Indeed, a thread all through Part One could be how the Earnshaw kids drive themselves to the grave because they can't control their own explosive emotions. Brother and sister alike.

Oh, and Hindley was evidently a terrible card player. A sorry loser in every way, for a young man who starts off with such advantages in life. I wonder whether it would've been any different for him had Frances survived.

Which brings us to the next question. 

7) Is Kenneth the most tactless and insensitive physician in VicLit?

John Sutherland suggests that he may be the most useless, because when we think about it, what percentage of Kenneth's patients actually recover? Regardless of this, the question I pose is more pertinent.

Think about it. When Frances Earnshaw delivers her baby and is soon to die of consumption, Kenneth reproaches Hindley for choosing 'such a rush of a lass.' He takes on a similar tone during the older Catherine's illness, insinuating that it serves her right. Then later, he makes Hindley's untimely death into a guessing game for Nelly, adding, 'I knew I'd draw water.' At least he has the grace to add, 'Poor lad, I'm sorry too.'  

You can expect no bedside manner, from a straight-talking Yorkshire doctor like Kenneth.

I invite you to visit my entire Bronte-Saurus page. 

Next, please check out my impressions here of Part Two, which is when Heathcliff stirs the pot for the younger generation, intent on using them as pawns to wreak his revenge on their parents. Feel free to hum along to Kate Bush in the meantime. 

'Heathcliff, it's me, Cathy, I've come home... So co-o-o-old, let me into your wind-o-o-o-w!'  

'My Place' by Sally Morgan

I bought this book in the early nineties soon after it was published, as it was in the media a lot back then. I decided to pull it off my shelf, where it's been ever since, for the memories. Would it live up to the positive impression I'd formed? The answer is.... not really! 

But I'm including it for the Memoir/Autobiography category in my 2025 Aussie Book Challenge.

MY THOUGHTS:

Sally Morgan's autobiography merges into family history, because getting to the bottom of whatever happened to her mother and grandmother became a driving force in her own life.

It begins in the mid-1950s. Sally is the eldest of five children. Her dad (Bill) is a war veteran and plumber whose PTSD keeps him frequently hospitalized and out of work. Mum (Gladys) is the main breadwinner with frequent cleaning jobs, who later starts her own successful floristry business. Nan (Daisy) keeps house and cooks for the family. She's a chain smoker whose front hair is bleached yellow with nicotine. Nan also holds the distinction of wielding the longest cigarette ash in the neighbourhood, but she has an odd way of scurrying off whenever the kids bring friends around to play. 

During their school years, Sally and her siblings suspect some family deception happening. Whenever their friends inquire where they come from, owing to their slightly darker skin tone, Mum and Nan mutter, 'Say you're Indian.' What's more, other adults, including school teachers, seem to disapprove of their family for some reason they can't comprehend. 

Rumours reach Sally's ears that their origin is Aboriginal. In effect, Mum and Nan have been denying the children their right to know their heritage for the most well-intentioned reason, fear of social backlash. 

When Sally makes it her business to find out whatever happened, her Nan in particular, is extremely sensitive to having the light of day shone on her past. Sally's gentle persistence takes years, but eventually she plumbs the personal histories of Nan, Mum, and Nan's brother, Arthur. Without getting too spoilerish, they've been victims of the Stolen Generation, in which young children were forcibly removed from their parents, supposedly for their own good. It was a disgraceful stage of our country's history which has left horrific scars on many Australian citizens.  

This is a good book with some irritating bits. I feel the supernatural content is presented in a way to confuse rather than intrigue or enlighten spiritual seekers. Those parts are written in a fairly obfuscating manner. But for the main part, Sally Morgan has a good balance of comic nostalgia and poignant heartache.

 I like her historical detail. For example, she recalls Australia's change to decimal currency on Valentine's Day, 1966, when many of us weren't even born. And even though I'm from a younger generation, Morgan's reference to show bags crammed with Smarties, Cherry Ripes, Samboy chips, and Violet Crumble bars stirs fond memories.   

My main issue with this book though, is its rough presentation. Punctuation is all wrong and the typesetting is dodgy. Quotation marks are higgledy-piggledy and there are often single-line widows and orphans dangling at the tops and bottoms of pages. The font is crammed and the margins skinny. 

My copy is an early one, so hopefully these issues have been fixed in more recent editions, considering this is quite a famous Aussie book that's been elevated to classic status. Once I might have brushed all this aside as having nothing to do with the story, yet this sort of thing is a big deal when it comes to readers' subliminal impressions of Australians as a whole. It is exactly the sort of sloppiness that might give our national literature a reputation for being slapdash and rough around the edges. I blame the publishers for this. To consistently get details wrong which could've so easily been corrected is a vital oversight.

But on the whole, it was an interesting book to revisit.  

🌟🌟🌟

    

'The Infernal World of Branwell Bronte' by Daphne du Maurier

This review is my tribute to a tortured soul on the anniversary of his death, for Branwell passed away all too soon on this very date in 1848. He's a young man whose plight has a way of lingering on my mind. I discovered this book at a great little seaside secondhand bookshop, and instantly bought it to add to my collection of Bronte lore. 

MY THOUGHTS:

This book is written in a documentary style. Daphne du Maurier was a huge fan of the Brontes, and it's very cool to see her tackle a non-fiction project of this calibre, changing her setting for once from her beloved seaside Cornwall to the chilly inland Yorkshire moors. 

She begins with the death of the unfortunate Branwell, aged just 31, then delves back into his past to examine the tragedy of the boy who got nowhere. Early on, he's described as, 'quick tempered, excitable, and as full of mischief as a bog pixie.' She explores how the sudden deaths of his two eldest sisters shocked the eight-year-old into 'an apprehension that would never leave him, that would for years fill his dreams by night, however much energy and fury he put into his days.'

Branwell Bronte was regarded by his family as a boy prodigy. He had an extensive vocabulary, photographic memory and fertile imagination. His peers were impressed by his ability to write two letters at once, holding one pen in each hand. He also played piano, which he did in his capacity as a junior member of the Freemasons. And he was quite a talented portrait painter, plugging away in his early twenties at his own business in Bradford. He even invented his own dialect for the fantasy land of Angria which he shared with his sister, Charlotte. The pair of them nicknamed their setting, 'the infernal world,' giving the title of this biography a grim double meaning. 

 It is sad to reflect that Reverend Patrick himself, for the best of reasons, might have been a catalyst in stuffing up his son's life. He strikes me as similar to the well-meaning menace in the old fable who attempts to rip open the cocoon for an emerging butterfly, thus causing its premature death. Perhaps Mr Bronte was too vigilant a caretaker. His valiant efforts to shield his sensitive son, and make his passage through the world as pain free as possible, stifled the frustrated young man who discovered, aged 20, that the sheltered lifestyle had fitted him for nothing. As a huge advocate for home education I don't say this lightly, but it might have been the wrong fit for Branwell in many ways. 

(However, I can't censure Reverend Patrick too severely, because he may well have been right. If he'd pushed Branwell into the brutal school system of that era, that may have proved disastrous in a totally different way. What a lose-lose situation.)

Reading this has stirred my sympathy for Branwell. It's easy enough for us in the 21st century to declare, 'He should've got his act together,' or, 'He didn't have what it takes.' But we're talking about the eight-year-old who was traumatized by the senseless deaths of two beloved sisters, and the 25-year-old who received a brutal triple blow with the loss of a vivacious young family friend, a best buddy of his, and the aunt who'd taken the place of his mother, almost all at once. 

He'd travailed at his aunt's bedside during her final agony while his sisters were away. And he suffered this grief at a time when it was a cinch to buy opium over the counter at the local chemist to dull any type of pain. 

Branwell was surely delusional at times, and wrote more than his fair share of waffly, egotistical letters, as du Maurier's extracts prove. I'm sure he was the dubious model for some of his sisters' drunken characters, such as Anne's Arthur Huntingdon and Emily's Hindley Earnshaw. It's easy to see how Branwell would've annoyed the heck out of everyone who knew and loved him, yet in spite of all this he was probably a courageous soul to have been as fun-loving as he reportedly was.   

Overall, you cannot help but feel compassion for this young man who pours his prodigious output into the deaf ears of an indifferent world, becoming famous on the coattails of his sisters for all the wrong reasons. He never wanted to be remembered for posterity as a fall-short, drunkard, and hopeless wreck, but a life of nothing but deferred hope takes its toll on a person's body, soul, and spirit. How could Branwell avoid bearing on his shoulders the demoralizing identity as a failure, especially with such a lot riding on his status as the 'The Son' in a patriarchal society, and the shining hope of his sisters.

How about that famous pillar painting of his, which he reputedly attempted to scrub himself out of. Almost two centuries later, traces of his image now show through a bit. This may be taken as a positive reinforcement that he truly deserves his spot along with his sisters in the family image. But if you're anything like me, the darkly comedic thought might have crossed your mind that he couldn't even get that right!   

Regarding the big scandal of his life, his relationship with Mrs Lydia Robinson, du Maurier paints her in a more sympathetic light than many Bronte biographers do. I find this very interesting, since she focuses her research on Branwell in particular, comes to understand him well, and conjectures that he may have blown a whole lot out of proportion in his usual delusional way. Also fascinating is the interesting evidence that Branwell may have written or collaborated with Emily on at least a portion of Wuthering Heights. (More on that another time.) 

Isn't life full of irony. One of Branwell's idols, and embodiments of success out of his reach was a poet named William Deardon. Poor Branwell longed for similar standing in the eyes of the world, yet as du Maurier points out, Deardon's only claim to fame now is having heard a live reading from Wuthering Heights straight from the lips of Emily Bronte's brother.

We'll never know how Branwell might have got along had he been born in the 21st century. I'm sure he would've found it a hard slog with all his personal issues, including whatever nervous and medical conditions ailed him along with probable bi-polar disorder. But I'd be willing to bet it might've suited him more than the infernal nineteenth century, to borrow his own term, and at least he might've survived beyond the age of 31. 

🌟🌟🌟🌟      

Please check out my Bronte Page for more content.

'Fangirl' by Rainbow Rowell

Summary: A coming-of-age tale of fanfiction, family, and first love.

MY THOUGHTS:

Some anonymous donor dropped this novel off into our Little Free Book Library, and I considered it very timely, for I meant to read it someday. I know this book has been doing the rounds for years and since it found its way to me,  I've got onto it at last. 

The heroine is an introverted 18-year-old named Cath, who has a thriving fanfic following incognito. Her writing revolves around the Simon Snow series, a global phenomenon about an 11-year-student who attends a school of magick. (Yep, of course it's a thinly disguised replica of Harry Potter.)

 Meanwhile Cath's real life is fraught with difficulties. Her identical twin, Wren, is all for extroverting, drinking, and partying. Their single dad, Arthur, is a workaholic in the creative field of advertising, ever on the verge of breakdown, and their mother, Laura, who left when the girls were eight, is extending feelers after a decade of absence. Cath's roommate, Reagan, is a super-cool chick, and Reagan's best friend, Levi, is an effervescent soul who takes an interest in Cath, which is disconcerting. On top of all this is actual course work too. 

The most abrasive character for me is Professor Piper, the popular teacher who gives Cath an 'F' on a fiction writing assignment because it's fanfic. The professor is horrified for all the conventional reasons. Because Cath has adopted another author's created world and characters, Piper considers it plagiarism and theft of creative property. 

Her reasoning strikes me as somewhat shallow and reactive. The HUGE popularity of this style of writing alone fails to convince the Prof Pipers of the world that fanfic is a powerful tool for promoting positive social change. When well-beloved stories of our culture are tweaked to offer fresh insights, the resulting works of literature sometimes pack a greater punch than brand new material ever possibly could. It has been done in various forms for centuries. But even when Cath likens it to repurposing and recycling, Professor Piper won't budge from her fixed point of view.

Perhaps I'm negatively biased because this character has stepped on my toes, but as well as her narrow-mindedness, I find Piper's attitude of favoritism makes me gag. Every other student in the class must twig that Cath, despite her dwindling enthusiasm for the subject, is the teacher's pet. What Professor Piper is willing to do for one, such as extending deadlines unsought, she ought to do for every single student. So this professor has become one of those occasional characters who I don't like even though the author intends us to. 

The ending is somewhat disappointing. The story simply sputters to a stop. Several threads we're invested in are left dangling. However, I suppose the fact that I wanted them to go on, having plowed through almost 450 pages already, proves the compelling nature of Rowell's writing.

Overall, I enjoyed Fangirl. The characterization and dialogue are great, and the premise of a quiet and awkward young student who's secretly building a massive fanfic following is a winner for me. To quote Cath, 'I'd rather pour myself into a world I love and understand than try to make something up out of nothing.' It's a totally valid stance and I find it almost a shame that she finally caves in to pressure to write an original story. (Mild spoiler - the fact that Cath wins a prestigious prize for it after cranking it out so grudgingly makes me feel sad for other students who pour everything into their own efforts.)    

There is a sequel, or rather a companion novel to this one, entitled Carry On! We readers are to take it as the actual fan-fiction written by Cath throughout this novel, which sets my brain spinning. We are essentially being offered a fanfic by a fictional character about a non-existent book series. Even though there is no such thing as the original Simon Snow series by Gemma T Leslie, that hasn't stopped thousands of readers willing to read fanfic about it. Am I weird in preferring to stick to fanfics which are at least based on some existing material we can compare it with?  

🌟🌟🌟🌟

Note: If you'd like to explore my fanfiction page, including those I've read and those I've written, start here.

'Digital Minimalism' by Cal Newport

Summary: Minimalism is the art of knowing how much is just enough. Digital minimalism applies this idea to our personal technology. It's the key to living a focused life in an increasingly noisy world.

In this timely and enlightening book, the bestselling author of Deep Work introduces a philosophy for technology use that has already improved countless lives.

MY THOUGHTS: 

Cal Newport's voice is widely known for speaking dire warnings about the consequences of our twenty-first century online habits. He strikes me as someone standing in an Old Testament prophet sort of role, with one crucial difference. While those biblical prophets were brushed off as melancholic loonies during their own era, I think we all know in our deepest hearts that Newport speaks wisdom and common sense. As a race, we often simply prefer to drift along, spending passive hours on social media platforms anyway, driven by FOMO and the possible hope of positive reinforcement. 

This is why I feel books such as this one give me the indignant drive to actually see what's going on and do something about it. Here comes a brief summary of how Newport's research and study helps pull the wool away from my eyes.     

The smart entrepreneurs at Silicon Valley who set up our social media platforms play on our weaknesses. They know all about the power of intermittent reinforcement and quick dopamine fixes. But the problem for us as individuals is that any form of addiction is no good for us. These surges of dopamine play havoc with our overall contentment and wellbeing, yet we still fall for it. And when reinforcement in the form of likes, hearts, taps, and comments is not as frequent as we'd hope, the resulting sadness can cast a pall over our days. But it's a lose-lose situation, for even when it is forthcoming, we then set our bars higher and aim for even more. 

When I was about 19 years old, studying undergraduate Psychology, part of the mandatory course material was an experiment with poor rats down in the laboratory. We had to test their willingness to press a bar that distributed a handful of food pellets, and examine the power of intermittent reinforcement. I've never forgotten that, and feel certain that whistle blowers like Cal Newport are quite correct in pointing out that we ourselves are being played for rats, all so that some corporate giants can keep lining their own pockets. For if we regard ourselves as the consumers of social media platforms, he turns it upside down in pointing out that we are, in fact, the product. Big monopolies and advertisers are the 'consumers' who count on our taps and engagement in this attention economy. 

Newport also examines Henry David Thoreau's theory of 'new economics.' In a nutshell, for each small gain any activity might confer, Thoreau would examine the extreme cost on the other side of the scales. In Thoreau's nineteenth century example, a fine house with the best quality curtains, wallpaper and furnishings was paid for with the time, toil, maybe even blood, of hard work. In the case of our modern, digital era, Newport suggests that for our regular social media engagement and scrolling, we're sacrificing huge chunks of time, valuable solitude, quality of mood, shredding our attention spans and possibly straining our relationships. In a nutshell, we are paying for it with our lives.

Solitude Deprivation is a serious repercussion of our online era because many of us are spending zero minutes of time solely with our own thoughts, away from the non-stop input from other minds. The way Newport puts it is that, 'prioritizing communication over reflection is a source of serious concern.' Hence, he advises us to consistently create our own metaphorical cabins away, similar to Thoreau's actual cabin by Walden Pond. Possible ways of doing this may be taking long walks with our phones tucked away, journaling our reflections, and choosing high quality leisure, such as demanding arts and crafts. 

What I like about this book is that Newport isn't advising to quit our online lives completely. He advises us to take a month-long detox, then honestly assess whether each social media platform directly supports something we deeply value (for the fact that it offers some value is irrelevant). And oh man, after reading all of this, I feel seriously inclined to pare back even more than I already have.

I'm not giving five stars because some of Newport's counsel strikes me as somewhat extreme. Since he believes that nothing can beat real time spent with friends, either face-to-face or over the phone, he recommends never clicking likes or hearts on social media at all as a general rule. In Newport's opinion, these multiple 'on-line' friendships give us the mere illusion of 'real' relationships. Perhaps he's right to some extent, but as a shy introvert, I treasure my on-line friendships as more genuine than he gives them credit for. As for sending PMs or text messages instead of picking up the phone, having these wonderful options at my fingertips has been a game-changer for me. Making actual phonecalls was always something I dreaded, for when you think about it, you're surely interrupting people, whether it's welcome or not.     

I don't review or outline all of the non-fic books I read, but make an exception for potentially life-changing ones with valuable content. Newport's suggestions of 'high quality leisure' to replace this mindless scrolling is cool to read (like creating blog content like this). He sets us pondering whether or not we'd still voraciously use Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, and all the others if we had to pay for it. As for me, I'll certainly think carefully before I obey any impulse to check my stats on the sites I do value, namely this blog and Archive of Our Own. Do I really need to know right this second?

If you've ever been remotely anxious about digital well-being, then this is one of the books I'd recommend. 

 🌟🌟🌟🌟

'Nemesis' by Agatha Christie

Summary: In utter disbelief, Jane Marple read the letter addressed to her from the recently deceased Mr Rafiel - an acquaintance she had met briefly while on vacation in St. Honore, as recounted in "A Caribbean Mystery."

Rafiel had left instructions for her to investigate a crime after his death. The only problem was, he had failed to tell her who was involved or where and when the crime had been committed. It was most intriguing. Soon she is faced with a new crime - the ultimate crime - murder. It seems someone is adamant that past evils remain buried.

MY THOUGHTS:

Miss Marple notices the name of an old acquaintance, Mr Rafiel, in the death column. It turns out he's bequeathed her ￡20 000, provided she solves a mystery with details he's very sketchy about. Rafiel has booked her a place, seemingly from beyond the grave, on a bus tour of famous houses and gardens of Great Britain. Miss Marple has no idea what she's meant to do but await further instructions from the dead man. It seems Mr Rafiel was determined not to influence her mindset, yet Miss Marple feels that going in blind is ridiculous. 

She discovers that Rafiel's only son is in jail, convicted of murdering his own fiance long ago. Young Michael Rafiel was generally regarded as a 'bad lot.' His father considered him 'morally sick' and beyond the hope of reform, yet believed him innocent of this heinous crime. His dying wish was to have it proved. The question is, who was the real murderer? Should Miss Marple consider any of the other passengers on the tour, or maybe one of three sisters who lives in the vicinity of their first stop?

The need for resolution becomes more urgent when another coach passenger, (I won't divulge who), is killed by a falling boulder. The fact that this person also seemed on the trail of young Verity's murderer convinces Miss Marple that this was no freak accident. Especially since two other young passengers are certain they saw an unidentified figure rolling the huge rock. Now there is at least one other murder involved, Miss Marple desperately doesn't want to fail. 

Some of her own beliefs make this story quite interesting. Throughout her long life, Miss Marple has noticed that, 'curious connections of incidents with special subjects seem to happen to people in life,' and in her own case, murders have a way of happening in her vicinity. (If Miss Marple happens to walk into your cafe, get out quick smart.) But her 'fine sense of evil' helps her get to the bottom of them. 

Regarding evil itself, she remarks:

'I don't like that sort of thing. If you expect me to feel sympathy, regret, urge an unhappy childhood, blame bad environment; if you expect me, in fact, to weep over him, this young murderer of yours, I do not feel inclined to do so. I do not like evil beings who do evil things.' 

And her new friend, Professor Wanstead, expert on the criminal brain, replies:

'I'm delighted to hear it... If people knew the bad environments that people have had, the unkindness, the difficulties of their lives and the fact that nevertheless they can come through unscathed, I don't think they would so often take the opposite point of view.'  

I figured out the murderer. This person was on my radar for similar reasons to those which occurred to Miss Marple. Since every fellow passenger had suspect potential, this should have been way harder to figure out than it was. I consider it a middling Marple mystery, so perhaps it's a good thing it was the last. 

Finally, the fact that the coach tour carried on after a passenger's tragic demise dates this 1971 publication! Holy Moley, my daughter who works in the travel industry confirms that if it happened in the 21st century, the rest of the tour would be cancelled as a matter of course and all the passengers refunded. 

🌟🌟🌟