Mr Lawrie Brewster, founder of Hex Studios and President of Amicus Productions, considers the modern interpretation of Wuthering Heights and its uneasy relationship with the Gothic tradition.
There exists in contemporary literary criticism a habit which presents itself as sophistication: a fondness for popular definitions and neat categorisations, by which complex and many-sided themes are broken down into manageable fragments and arranged with an air of finality. One is reminded, perhaps, of the orderly satisfaction of a kitchen restored to its proper place.
In responding to the BBC’s recent framing of Wuthering Heights, this impulse is rendered particularly visible when a deliberately unruly novel is hurried towards a conclusion expressed in the reassuring formula: this is really about X. By such means the work is metaphorically pinned to a board, like some curious specimen, labelled, classified, and, above all, made safe.
That word safe will bear revisiting.
This, it seems to me, is the risk run by the BBC article in question, authored by Molly Gorman, when it leans upon the phrase “toxic romance” as a tidy interpretive conclusion. Such language, comfortably aligned with modern psychological shorthand and fashionable pseudo-scientific terminology, affords the reader the pleasing sensation of contemporary relevance. Yet Wuthering Heights is not contemporary in that sense, and neither, in any essential respect, is love itself.
The novel is unquestionably harrowing. Its central relationship is destructive, drawing both willing and unwilling participants into a tempest of passion and violence. But to reduce Catherine and Heathcliff to a cautionary illustration of “toxicity” is to diminish a storm into a puddle. More seriously, it translates what is fundamentally a metaphysical drama into the idiom of a minor modern advisory column, thereby altering the scale upon which the book properly operates.
One suspects that such framing arises from discomfort with the novel’s refusal to submit to simple classification. It resists tidy rationalisation; it cannot be compressed into the vocabulary of passing socio-political fashion. Yet the metaphysical dimension is not incidental to Brontë’s work. It is its animating core.
This is not to excuse the cruelty depicted, nor to romanticise the suffering endured by the characters. It is, rather, a defence against a critical habit that seeks to domesticate the novel by categorisation. Brontë is not merely chronicling behaviour suitable for amateur psychological diagnosis. She stages love as an elemental force: amoral, immense, and, at times, terrifying.
The Problem with “Toxic Romance”
The term “toxic” is not without practical utility. In everyday life it may assist individuals in recognising harmful patterns and establishing necessary boundaries. Yet in literary discourse it functions too easily as a comforting shorthand, importing an assumption that love, if it is to merit the name, must also be morally salutary.
Brontë appears indifferent to such an assumption. Indeed, her novel suggests that the premise itself is misplaced.
The central insight of Wuthering Heights is not merely that human beings are capable of treating one another badly, though the narrative offers abundant evidence of this. Rather, it asks a more unsettling question: what if love is not a virtue at all, but a force akin to gravity. Binding, compelling, and indifferent to human convenience?
Catherine’s declaration that she and Heathcliff are made of the same substance is not an ethical claim but an ontological one. It situates the reader beyond the familiar realm in which romance is imagined as a reward for good conduct, and into a landscape where feeling may be authentic and yet profoundly destructive.
Gorman is right to resist sentimentalising the novel as the “greatest love story” in any conventional sense. Yet there is a danger in replacing sentimentality with diagnosis, as though the only alternative to naïve romanticism were psychological reduction. A third path remains: tragedy.
Brontë Is Not Diagnosing; She Is Making Myth
Modern readers often reach for the language of pathology because Brontë’s characters inhabit emotional extremes. Heathcliff’s cruelty is operatic in scale; Catherine’s self-assertion borders upon annihilation. The temperature of feeling exceeds the bounds of ordinary realism.
But this excess is deliberate. Wuthering Heights is Gothic not merely by virtue of its moors and apparitions, but because emotion itself becomes a landscape. Longing, jealousy, pride, and grief are not moderated; they are given meteorological force.
Catherine and Heathcliff are best understood not as a case study in unhealthy attachment, but as a mythic pairing: a single divided force struggling against the constraints of class, civilisation, and time. Their bond is not “unhealthy” in any clinical sense; it is simply too large for such categories. Brontë’s question is not whether love behaves well, but what occurs when it refuses containment.
That such love results in devastation does not render it counterfeit. It merely reveals its indifference to the comforting belief that love must always be kind.
“Misunderstood” But By Whom?
It is tempting to attribute misunderstanding to the novel’s popular reputation as a tale of grand romance, reinforced by celebrated adaptations such as the 1939 film starring Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier. Yet to claim a single corrective interpretation risks replacing one simplification with another.
The enduring power of Wuthering Heights lies in its refusal of moral neatness. Heathcliff is both victim and tyrant; Catherine is lucid and self-deluding; the moors signify liberation and exposure in equal measure. Brontë offers no verdict. She presents contradiction and obliges the reader to inhabit it.
To label the central relationship “toxic” may describe certain behaviours, but it fails to capture the novel’s deeper concern with being rather than conduct. The essential question is not whether these characters ought to be together, but what it means when two selves experience their connection as more real than the social world surrounding them. No convenient label resolves that inquiry.
The Metaphysical Dimension
The BBC article acknowledges the novel’s unsettling qualities, yet gives insufficient attention to its most radical proposition: that love may persist beyond death not as consolation, but as an obstinate refusal of separation.
Heathcliff seeks not healing but continuity, even at the price of torment. His plea to be haunted is grotesque and sacred in equal measure, expressing a desire that has moved beyond morality into metaphysics. To interpret this merely as obsession is to reduce the novel to a narrow psychological reading. Brontë gestures instead toward a reality in which identity itself is unstable, memory saturates landscape, and human bonds exceed rational explanation.
The Importance of the Second Movement
The latter half of the novel is often omitted in adaptation, a loss rightly noted by Gorman. Yet its purpose is not simply punitive. It does not function as a moral lesson in the consequences of passion.
Through Cathy and Hareton, Brontë introduces a different register of love: patient, reparative, and inhabitable. This is not a repudiation of the earlier storm, but an acknowledgement that human life continues after extremity. The novel neither denies catastrophe nor celebrates it; it traces the possibility of renewal that follows.
Such is the deeper promise of tragedy: not moral instruction, but transformation.
On Adaptation
The familiar lament that no film can fully capture Wuthering Heights reflects not narrative difficulty but a category error. Cinema habitually seeks either a romance to be felt or a warning to be absorbed. Brontë offers neither in isolation. She offers an encounter.
Any adaptation worthy of the source must resist the temptation to prettify the love into safe sentiment or to recast it as a modern cautionary tale. The novel’s genius lies in its refusal to become a brochure for either impulse. A faithful cinematic spirit would resemble a haunting rather than a lesson: something that lingers beyond explanation.
Let Love Be Terrible
Brontë’s true provocation is not that she depicts cruelty, for literature is full of such scenes, but that she refuses to equate love with moral improvement. Love, in her rendering, may degrade, destroy, and yet remain authentic. This unsettles a culture that prefers to associate the word with comfort and virtue.
If we insist that love must signify goodness, we misread not only Wuthering Heights but the tragic tradition itself. Brontë does not ask for Heathcliff’s approval. She asks that we recognise the vastness and indifference of human feeling, and accept that reality seldom arrives with moral guarantees.
We may indeed discard sentimental myth. But to replace it with the smaller myth of clinical certainty is to commit an equal error. Brontë did not write a case study. She wrote a storm, and storms are not concerned with our terminology.
About Mr Lawrie Brewster
Mr Lawrie Brewster is a producer and director with fifteen years of experience in independent horror cinema. He leads Hex Studios, serves as President of Amicus Productions, and oversees the British Horror Studio initiative.
For a modern version of this article, see here:
For further information, visit www.lawriebrewster.com.