>>7582486
That's actually a good point and I never thought about it that way. I guess the backdrop of mid 19th century England makes everyone too entrenched in fulfilling social roles to be introspective. Maybe also there is a cynicism which flows from Heathcliff's presence which by extension means a cynicism of any kind of intellectual escapism? Anyway I'm not sure the author intended the characters to be read as stupid, Cathy is well read, I think Lockwood is meant to be, as the narrator, quite bright and Heathcliff has a cunning which I suppose is a form of intelligence. But you're right in the sense that in general the characters seem to be uncritical of their surroundings.

it's a break from all the victorian romanticism back then
of course by itself compared to all the stuff now it's nothing special but that does not take away from its place in history
the book is a rebellion in the form of heathcliff the wrecker, against british sensibility

To be fair a lot of people in real life are either impetuous, a dick, stupid, or a combination thereof.

I remember Nelly being relatively kind and reasonable, though.

I think that's part of the charm; in an era when similar writers, including her sisters, were writing overly sentimental, romantic shit she managed to produce something so completely different and really quite dark but without deviating too far from the setting and genre. In the preface to one of the editions published in her life time Charlotte criticised Emily's writing and described it as 'unrefined' or something similar, she tried to imply that Emily had just accidentally created this brooding work due to lack of experience while trying to emulate her contemporaries which I don't buy at all.

Also no matter how many times I read it, which is a fair few times now, I can't remove the image from my head of Kate Bush as Cathy.