Kathryn Hughes reviews Graham Watson's
The Invention of Charlotte Brontë for
The Wall Street Journal. Behind paywall, unfortunately.
When Elizabeth Gaskell published a biography of her late friend Charlotte Brontë in 1857, it caused a furor. More than 100 letters, ranging from the litigious to the mildly vexatious, arrived at the Manchester, England, home Gaskell shared with her minister husband. “I am in the hornet’s nest with a vengeance,” Gaskell wailed to Brontë’s childhood friend Ellen Nussey, who had been one of the biographer’s chief informants. Yet despite fire from all sides, Gaskell maintained that “The Life of Charlotte Brontë” had done what she intended, which was to make Brontë “known and valued as one who had gone through such a terrible life.” Buoyed by the scandal, the book sold out in a fortnight.
The serpentine story of how Gaskell researched and wrote her biography of Brontë has been told before, most signally in Lucasta Miller’s “The Brontë Myth” (2001). In “The Invention of Charlotte Brontë,” Graham Watson returns to the familiar narrative but gives it room to breathe, providing details on Gaskell’s energetic pursuit of letters, memories and souvenirs from the people who had known Brontë best. Her sources included schoolmates, publishers, teachers—not forgetting Brontë’s clergyman father and his curate, Arthur Nicholls, who had married the novelist nine months before her death in 1855 at the age of 38. (...)
Mr. Watson, a specialist in the Brontës, has produced a biography of a biography and a gripping testimony into the enduring problems that all biographers face in pursuit of their art: worries over the laws of copyright and libel, the difficulties of managing surviving family members, and the balance to be struck between vivid storytelling and documentary rigor. His writing is often clunky and his use of first names—Elizabeth for Gaskell, Arthur for Nicholls—is disconcerting, not least because, at that time, they would have stuck to “Mrs.” and “Mr.” Quibbles aside, “The Invention of Charlotte Brontë” is a useful book for anyone who wants to understand the twists and turns, revelations and silences, and endless revisions by which a literary legend endures. (Kathryn Hughes)
‘Be More Brontë’, wrote Queen Camilla on a postcard during her visit to Thornton’s literary shrine this year.
It was the spring of 1815 when the Brontë family moved to a modest house on Market Street in Thornton. This was the house where Charlotte, Branwell, Emily and Anne were born and spent their early childhood, before the family moved to Haworth.
To mark 210 years since the Brontës arrived in Thornton, the Queen was invited to the official launch of the Brontë Birthplace, which has opened to the public as a visitor, literary and education centre.
Following a remarkable crowdfunding campaign supported by more than 700 investors, and grants from Bradford 2025 and the Community Ownership Fund, the house has had a major nine-month restoration. More than £650,000 was raised to save the historic site, which has opened under the care of Brontë Birthplace Limited.
The house offers a fascinating visitor experience, to learn about life during the Regency period in Thornton and the Brontës’ domestic lives as a young family. An education programme is using the property’s legacy to inspire schoolchildren to believe in what they can achieve - just as three girls from Thornton, who went on to write some of the world’s most celebrated novels, did two centuries ago.
There’s an overnight facility too, with three bedrooms named after Emily, Charlotte and Anne open for the public to stay in.
Having visited the house last year, before the renovation, I’ve been keen to see how it looks now. Thomas Haig from the Brontë Birthplace Committee meets me in the parlour, where Emily, Charlotte, Anne and Branwell were born by the hearth. This cosy space will be home to a new cafe.
We go through to a gallery and exhibition space which contains period furniture - including an 18th century long case clock, one of only two by a Halifax clock-maker still existing, gifted by a Brontë enthusiast, and chairs salvaged from a chapel. While the ceiling beams look old they’re replicas of original beams which the builders found rotting.
In the scullery, the flagstone floor is from the Brontës’ time. 'The stones were discovered underneath the flooring; each one carefully lifted then put back,' says Thomas. 'The original wooden ceiling was found beneath plaster.'
A range that looks like it’s always been there was sourced from a pub in Huddersfield.
Leading off the scullery are ‘Nancy’s steps’ up to the room where she slept, where dolls and a cradle are a nod to the Brontës’ childhood. Nancy De Garrs was 13 when she moved in as the Brontës’ nanny. Her storytelling is said to have influenced the children and she went with the family to Haworth in 1820.
Nancy’s room has a dress-up rail for young visitors. 'We’ve appointed an education officer, who’ll be working with schools, colleges and adult learning,' says Thomas.
The Queen met schoolchildren on her visit, taking part in an activity inspired by the ‘Be More Brontë’ initiative. Unveiling a commemorative plaque, watched by cheering crowd, Her Majesty said: 'I would very much love to visit again.'
Up the main staircase we come to Charlotte’s Room, where a four-poster bed takes pride of place and the 200-year-old floor has been restored. This was the children's room when the family lived here. Emily’s Room was Patrick and Maria’s bedroom. Both spacious rooms are beautifully decorated, with original fireplaces. At the end of the landing is Anne’s Room, a delightful little room where an original window has been uncovered beneath plasterboard. This part of the house was built after the Brontës left.
Each bedroom has an touch of modern day with an en-suite. 'We’ve had lots of interest from people wanting to stay here,' says Thomas.
It’s perfect for a literary retreat, or a mini break on the Brontë trail.
There are regular guided tours here - a lively group is arriving as I leave. Thornton Arts Trail drew 350 visitors. While the house celebrates the Brontë legacy, and retains the feel of their busy family home, it also takes visitors back to the times when they lived there. In the visitor experience room is an intriguing display of items found during the renovation, including a Corgi toy box and handwritten schoolwork which was under floorboards.
'The Brontës lived here for five years, after that there were other inhabitants,' says Thomas. 'It’s been a butcher’s shop, a museum, a coffee shop. Items from the house reflect its various periods.'
Beautifully restored, the house connects visitors with its past and its place in Thornton’s heritage and present day community. This was a bustling family home - Patrick said the happiest days of his life were in this modest house - and this remarkable restoration project honours the Bronte legacy for future generations. (Emma Clayton)
Casting aside, does the film stay faithful to the book? I doubt it, but then hardly any adaptation of Wuthering Heights ever has. Most versions end with Cathy’s death, whereas there’s a whole section of the book that goes beyond this, focusing on the next generation and Heathcliff’s descent into grief-stricken madness. This final arc is grim and disturbing and I’ve only ever known one adaptation, a lengthy TV series, see it through to the end.
Will Emerald Fennell’s erotic love story go there? I doubt it.
But does it really matter? There have been countless interpretations of Wuthering Heights - it’s up there with A Christmas Carol and Pride and Prejudice as the most re-imagined novels. Wuthering Heights has been a silent film, a Bollywood movie, Spanish, Japanese, French and Filipino films, a graphic novel, a gothic soap opera, a ballet, musicals, operas, TV dramas and mini series (in Mexico and Venezuela, among other countries) and it was of course immortalised in vinyl by Kate Bush.
Each adaptation brings something new to the story, and draws a new audience to it. My introduction to Wuthering Heights was the 1970 TV film starring Timothy Dalton. It wasn’t the best version but, watching it as a girl, I was fascinated by it. Kate Bush said that it wasn’t the book that inspired her to write her No.1 hit - it was an old TV series.
Any adaptation of Emily Brontë’s only novel, widely regarded as a masterpiece of English literature, will divide opinion. The classic 1939 film, starring Laurence Olivier as Heathcliff, is the most popular but I found it cloying and melodramatic. And I disliked Andrea Arnold’s naturalistic 2011 film because the unskilled acting got on my nerves. Each version is different, and divisive, and that’s okay. Since the trailer for Fennell’s film was released the other day, there has been a spike in ‘Wuthering Heights’ online searches. If this film introduces a Gen Z audience to the novel, and consequently draws more visitors to our own ‘Bronte Country’, that’s a good thing, right?
As Rebecca Yorke, director of the Brontë Parsonage Museum, has said: “Every screen or theatre adaptation brings something fresh for contemporary audiences to think about. It is a testimony of Emily’s legacy that her writing continues to inspire creatives today. We look forward to seeing what Emerald Fennell’s adaptation adds to the mix.” (Emma Clayton)
A contributor to
The Irish News says that, 'It’s time to admit
Wuthering Heights doesn’t belong on screen'.
There are certain books that seem to tempt filmmakers again and again, Brontë’s only novel has been adapted countless times, with versions dating back to the silent era and recurring every couple of decades since. Each adaptation promises to finally ‘get it right,’ but somehow, never do.
The problem lies in its structure and tone. Wuthering Heights isn’t just a tale of tragic romance; it’s a layered, jagged story told through unreliable narrators and framed perspectives.
The characters are complex and recount the past in fragments, leaving the reader to untangle what might have really happened. Nothing is black or white but morally grey.
Heathcliff, one of literature’s most enduring figures, is simultaneously sympathetic and monstrous, while Cathy is both captivating and cruel. Their love is not redemptive or aspirational but all-consuming and ultimately devastating.
Film, however, rarely thrives on nuance or ambiguity. It’s a medium which demands clarity; the stories need to be easy to follow with clear arcs and characters who can be neatly defined as either ‘goodies’ or ‘baddies’.
Most adaptations tend to cater to this criteria smoothing down the book’s complexities and presenting Wuthering Heights as a grand romance rather than the unsettling, often ugly exploration of obsession and revenge that it truly is.
This is why some critics have gone so far as to label the novel “unfilmable.” While that might sound far-fetched, history supports the claim, as despite the beauty and effort poured into the material by various filmmakers none have produced a version that feels definitive.
In fact, some of the most compelling interpretations of Brontë’s novel have come not from cinema at all but from other art forms.
Kate Bush’s 1978 debut single Wuthering Heights manages to capture the book’s eerie, untamable spirit better than most films have. With her otherworldly voice and surreal lyricism, Bush condenses Cathy’s ghostly presence and the novel’s raw, unearthly passion into four minutes of music.
Even in the hands of a daring director like Emerald Fennell, early indications suggest her version will likely join the long line of ambitious but flawed attempts. [...]
So perhaps it’s time we leave Wuthering Heights on the page. Because if there’s one lesson Brontë’s novel teaches us, it’s that obsession rarely ends well. (Sophie Clarke)
And yet, even if it is impossible to adapt, what's wrong with trying?
Express looks at the filming locations.
Metro lists '7 cosy period dramas to stream on Netflix that’ll warm your heart' including Frances O'Connor's
Emily.
0 comments:
Post a Comment