Thursday, February 26, 2009

Heathcliff

Last night, I was talking to a friend about Heathcliff. He is one of my all-time favourite characters. Mainly because his heart was like a woman’s. Like a mother of a new-born. He opened his heart and let his affection pour out like a savage sea. His heart was jagged and gritty and echoed with the hollow winds of unrequited love. He did not shield his heart from irrefutable pain or rejection. He, in fact, seemed to be spurred on by both. He did not put up a barbed little fence around his pride. Did not decide that he would love only until this point and no more. He ripped his heart just so that it remained open for Catherine. He hunted, he haunted.

And in some bizarre way, in a way that can only spell self-destruction, he managed to shield his heart from only two things that could have saved him – control and restraint.

I have unlikely heroes.

11 comments:

omnithere said...

very interesting inference ...

Anonymous said...

KAISE MUJHE TUM BHOOL GAYI
KISMAT PE NAA AAYE YAKIN

-NO I'M NOT THE ONE WHO PROMISED OF ANY ALLO PARATHA BUT THE ONE WHOM PROMISED OF BEING FRIENDS THRUOUT THE LIFE.

Lonely sky over the sea..... said...

Oye who is Heathcliff????????

Mukta said...

hello anon,

okay i guess i made some kind of a mistake. thought you were my ex-roomie. :-)

And lonely, heathcliff is a character from the novel 'Wuthering Heights' by Charlotte Bronte. All I can say is read it, read it, read it!

madhavan said...

you got it wrong. heathcliff was all man at his worst in love; the archetypal obsessed stalker, except the love, in his case, was NOT unrequited. what he does not get is possession and that is what his vicious defective character is outraged about. his love does not shape his character, it is his character which shapes his love. moreover, he DOES NOT self-destruct, rather he withers away in some sort of spiritual ecstasy.

Mukta said...

touched a chord, eh? also, i think the easiest way to explain love that is wonton and fierce is to call it possessiveness.

madhavan said...

Heh heh, just one teeny weeny chord, I confess. The interpretation was startling enough to get me jumping up and down. But, on reflection, there is no reason why my interpretation should be any better than yours. It was after all written by a woman (Emily Bronte and not Charlotte).

Mukta said...

ah yes...emily! right. thanks...lonely, it's emily bronte, not charlotte bronte, like i said.

In fact, madhavan, there is a theory that postulates that Emily's characterization of Heathcliff was based on her own personality...and Wuthring Heights is based on her love affair with another woman.

neha said...

i dont know if it is just me, but i find the idea that she had a love affair at all is a bit hard to swallow having read the rest of the stuff she has written, ie, her poems.

but it is an amazing book... i have yet to make up my mind about it.

Mukta said...

hi neha,

hmm...i should read her poems then.

mukta raut said...

Hi Anon,

No. I don't know if I can remove you from some list. Although, I think you can uncheck that option of updating you of links if comments are added. That should usually be under the comments area, around the Publish button.