#that she's sitting there being like 'Yeah Heathcliffe and Cathy and Hindley really became very strange people; I turned out fine tho'

[the-busy-ghost]

Why, as a graduate of history who really should know better, am I always surprised when I finish a novel and go read some analysis of it only to end up saying, “Hang on, people think that character might have been an unreliable narrator???”

#I expect lies in historical sources but there's something about fictions that lulls me into a false sense of security #Lies? In my Victorian literature? It's more likely than you think #Note this does not mean I LIKE said characters #Frequently I'm thinking 'Wow they're an ass' as I read them #But unless they're evidently villainous I still tend to just accept them at their word #The Woman in White #I'm still not of the opinion that Walter is seriously lying but certainly they make a point about his point of view #At least with Wuthering Heights I clocked that Nellie had her own opinions pretty early on but still #Reading people's views on unreliable narration undeniably improves my enjoyment of the text though #Regardless of whether I agree or disagree #Especially re: Wuthering Heights by the way because although I do not agree with the idea that Nellie is the true villain of the piece #I adore her as a very complex character and I think it's mildly hilarious (and heartbreaking) #that she's sitting there being like 'Yeah Heathcliffe and Cathy and Hindley really became very strange people; I turned out fine tho' #Like hen darling sweetheart you are also very much Not Ok #The unreliable narration just makes the whole book all the more fascinating #But I'm getting off topic #Anyway I'd be a terrible literary critic not because I don't see very minor themes that other people might have overlooked #But the things that everyone else saw straight away and thought were obvious? They go straight over my head #reading log