Nostalgia is a file that removes the rough edges from the good old days. - Doug Larson

     Renato Resaldo's quote at the beginning of the essay caught me off gaurd, but only because I had never thought of nostalgia as something that both established and destroyed memories. When one thinks of nostalgia in general, it is often times associated with good emotions; happiness, excitement, and the like. People never really think that when they are nostalgic about someone or something, they may be repressing any of their less sterling qualities in order to remember their greater qualities. In order to establish one's innocence, reality will often times have to be destroyed. This reminds me very strongly of Catherine and Heathcliff. Through out the book, it seemed like they were unable to see the worst qualities of each other; by only remembering the best of each other, there was a justification, almost, of everything that they did out of "love" for the other.

      As Nancy Armstrong's essay points out, it is extremely easy to believe that Wuthering Heights is nothing more than a story that takes place in a setting detached from the rest of society. It has no overwhelming political concerns (outside of the politics between the Linton's and the Earnshaw's), and there is no mention of the overall culture of England in that time period. The reader, instead, is treated to a story that acts a gated community. When a character leaves, there is no mention of their activities until they come back to Wuthering Heights. There are no true intrusions into the world that these characters inhabit; even Lockwood, a blatant outsider, is sucked into the internal operations of Wuthering Heights.

     I don't think that Emily Brontë wrote Wuthering Heights with the intention of providing a deep, intellectual commentary on British culture during the Victorian era, but Wuthering Heights, nevertheless, does have cultural relevance. Nancy Armstrong explains that through the increased interest in folklore, the further development of photography, and regionalism, Wuthering Heights captivated audiences far beyond the time and setting in which it took place.

Women's chains have been forged by men, not by anatomy. ~Estelle R. Ramey

     It's common knowledge that women in the 19th century had little to no rights, but it's interesting to find out the specifics of such oppression. It's easy to say "Women had no rights," but to truly sit down and think about every single thing that a woman was not able to do is astounding and troublesome in equal parts. It baffles me to think that women weren't allowed to own any property, real or personal. The clothes on my back, the shoes on my feet - all belong to my husband! To know that the things I consider to be my own are only that because of my husband, quite frankly, irritates me. I cannot imagine living my life knowing that the moment I get married, everything that belonged to my father would be passed to my husband; my clothes, my wages, even the custody of my children. As someone who was taught to have a separate bank account from her husband after marriage, I cannot fathom the thought of having to give up all of my earnings to my husband.

      Another thing that bothered me was the fact that no law court in England could grant a divorce. A woman was trapped, well and truly in her marriage. The only way she would be able to leave her husband was if he allowed her to live separately from him. She still had to keep his last name, and he still had a right to all of her earnings and belongings in the time they were apart. As soon as she was married, a woman was no longer her own person, she was simply an extension of her husband. She was defined by the man in her life, with no real existence.

      In our age, it's strange to think that these social injustices went on for so long. We as a society think that we are far beyond that point; we consider those laws to be antiquated and barbaric. We have made progress, that's for sure, but we still live in an age where misogyny rules. Although a man, or even a woman, may not actively hate women, there are still laws on the books that oppress women. For example, if a women is married and intends to buy a house, she must have her husband's signature on the contract. Why isn't a woman's signature good enough on it's own?

      Knowing that from the moment I was born, I was ten paces behind every man in this country doesn't make the oppression of the nineteenth century woman as antiquated or barbaric as I wish it was.

Wuthering Heights

     Wuthering Heights, despite my less than stellar opinion of it, is a book that I will probably never forget. Emily Brontë utilizes complicated structure that makes this book kind of fun to read. The book neglects the oft-used beginning-to-end structure that we as readers have become comfortable with. The novel starts with Lockwood's arrival at Thrushcross Grange, where he quickly becomes enraptured with the misery that is Catherine and Heathcliff's relationship.

     Being that Lockwood is having the story recounted to him by Nelly Dean, we receive a chunk of the story in the form of flashbacks. Lockwood also begins to record the story as a diary, and thus becomes a narrator himself. So now, we have Lockwood recounting Nelly Dean recounting the story of Heathcliff's relationship with Catherine. It's kind of confusing if you're not paying close attention.

     Most of the characters in Wuthering Heights leave something to be desired in my eyes. Despite one or two characters with some redeemable qualities, like Mr. Earnshaw or Edgar for example, I don't get how an entire group of people could be so petty and immature. It seems like no one had the sense to not take part in the malevolence. It's sad to me that the squabbles these character's suffered when they were children got blown out of proportion and turned them all into bitter people with only revenge and cruelty in their hearts.

     I wish I could say that despite all of the dismal situations we observe, "true love" conquers all. Unfortunately, I can't call this a romance; it's nothing more than a severe case of co-dependence between two insufferable people. They've made their relationship more important than anything in their lives, despite it not ever really working. Too many people got caught in the complicated web that is the Catherine/Heathcliff relationship; Edgar, Hareton, and Isabella were innocent victims in all of this, and it just makes me dislike Catherine and Heathcliff and their whole darn relationship even more.

     I know that I should try to read this book with an open mind, perhaps with the hope that my opinion may change. Unfortunately, these characters made a lasting impression on me the first time around. Any redeeming qualities they may have had were for the most part ignored in favor of their selfish quest for happiness and revenge.

Manguel 225-319

      This reading was very interesting. Manguel's recount of his experience as a young boy with the color-coded books and those that were off limits saddened me. The fact that this type of gender discrimination begins at such a young age (no matter how subtle) makes it easy to see why some men and, and even some women, buy into the idea that one gender (usually male) is stronger, more intelligent, and all around better than the other. It pleased me to see that Manguel managed to see past these social constructs to have a more open world view.  

     Manguel's division of the types of segregated readers rang true. Some readers were looking for a reflection of themselves and others decided that in order to get representation, they would have to create a literary work themselves. I don't feel that the segregated literature served to further seperate the groups but rather to show that there was, in fact, a difference between the the majority and the minority and to give proper representation of the latter.

     The chapters title "Reading Within Walls," does not, to me at least, represent a literary prison in which women were confined, but rather a safe space for a woman to read about herself and her culture in a manner and a space that is not skewed by someone who may not properly understand and represent her.