Jane Austen vs Emily Brontë: The Queens of English Literature Debate with Dominic West
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Jane Austen created the definitive picture of Georgian England -- a landscape of Palladian mansions and handsome parsonages, peopled by rigidly-divided classes. No writer matches Austen's sensitive ear for the hypocrisy and irony lurking beneath the genteel conversation. Never has a novelist written comic prose with such subtlety and restraint. If you want to understand the early 19th century -- the power of money and inheritance, the clothes, the interior décor -- Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice are worth a dozen history books, and any number of second-rate novels by Austen's contemporaries.
That's the argument of the Janeites, but to the aficionados of Emily Brontë they are the misguided worshippers of a circumscribed mind. In Wuthering Heights, Brontë dispensed with Austen's niceties and the upper-middle class drawing rooms of Bath and the home counties. Her backdrop is the savage Yorkshire moors, her subject the all-consuming passions of the heart. The story of Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw is a full-blooded tale of violent attraction, thwarted love, death and the supernatural that makes Jane Austen look mundane -- and clutches at the reader's heart with a vigour and directness unmatched in English literature.
To help you decide who should be crowned queen of English letters we lined up the best advocates to make the case for each writer. They called on actors, including stars Dominic West and Sam West, to illustrate their arguments with readings from the novels.
Filmed at the Royal Geographical Society on 26th February 2014.
_______________
Brilliant minds, debate, online events, ask your questions. Try Intelligence Squared +: www.intelligen...
WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE SQUARED+?
Intelligence Squared+ brings you live, interactive events online every week. You can ask your questions to our speakers, vote in live polls and interact with other members of the audience. Your subscription will give you access to multiple events, live and on-demand, featuring the world’s top thinkers and opinion formers.
Subscribe to Intelligence Squared+ today: www.intelligen...
Follow Intelligence Squared:
Instagram: / intelligencesquared
Facebook: / intelligence2
Twitter: / intelligence2
Listen to our podcasts?
Intelligence Squared Podcast: play.acast.com...
How I Found My Voice with Samira Ahmed: apple.co/32WnrPV
About Intelligence Squared:
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world.
Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
It's a pity that Austen passed away when Charlotte Bronte, one of her most condescending and vocal critics, was only a year old. The acclaim that women's literature started getting after Austen, made way for future female writers and the Bronte sisters are beneficiaries of that. To demean Austen's works as "simply romantic," as was repeated annoyingly enough in this video shows a decided lack of understanding of the period and her writing. She had an uncanny ability to make the readers feel intensely despite seemingly commonplace plots.. the Bronte sisters on the other hand depended upon intense plots to evoke that. Both are great styles of storytelling. Austen's magic was that she made the ordinary extraordinary and I for one am glad to be part of the global Janeite community.
Beautifully put Samrudhi.
The romantic opinion was once mine. But, i was corrected while at university.
Well said!
So am I!
A bigger problem is the idea that to be romantic, simple or not, is a flaw or something to be dismissed or that love stories exist independent of all other considerations such as money or morality.
It's equally amusing to see all those Austen scholars say their literary heroine wasn't romantic and didn't write write love stories, as if admitting she did makes her a Regency Barbara Cartland. Anyone who has read Persuasion and not seen it as a love story wasn't paying attention or has a heart of stone.
@@_Sakidora_ very well put! I wish that's a dynamic I addressed in my comment as well. I was just so put off by the borderline condescending way (at least that's how I saw it) in which they addressed Austen's work sometimes that I became a little defensive.
While there is a common element of romance in Austen's work, it's not just that and neither is it cheesy. You mentioned Persuasion which is my favourite of her works because it is about second chances and people overcoming their flaws and prejudices to finally acknowledge their feelings. It's certainly a romantic genre at the heart of it and there is nothing to defend in that.
@@samrudhik8757 I definitely understand your defensiveness. So much fiction written by women is dismissed, often by women themselves, as are women's interests.
Love stories are something trivial to be ignored and derided as the work of silly women writing for other women or pandering to the patriarchy or traditional gender roles or whatever nonsense is used currently to dismiss anything romantic or related to issues which concern women the most.
Of course there have been much more perceptive men, such as Kipling or the Janeites, soldiers who read Austen's work to take their mind away from the horrors of WW1, who valued her work as more than just 'escapism' (as if that's a bad thing in itself), but the prejudice stubbornly remains.
Persuasion is my favourite of hers too.
Austen for ME, because she mastered 3 personal passions: interpersonal psychology, iconic prose and humor. That said: Bronte was an oracle when describing the passion & rawness of the human condition. Placing them in battle is a fun exploration of literature, but it's just a tool. They dwelled in such different areas that meaningful comparison seems illogical for a reader. In my (irrelevant) case: both influenced a tomboy of color growing up in the modern American South. That power to transcend culture, era and personal reality, proves them both literary giants. I am grateful for both.
yes! the comparison is almost pointless, they are chalk and cheese, and both equally valuable.
Try Portrait of a lady by Henry James. It's even better.
@@pereiraplaza222 Yes! The dark tension between Gilbert & Isabel is so well written it grabs you no matter how many times you read it.
@@mayaluna11 Yes and the poor 2 guys desperately in love with Isabel, knowing they'll never have her... Although the ending leaves space for interpretation.
I love, love how you articulated the seemingly paradoxical ideas here that it is both unnecessary and worthwhile to spend time, talent and wit comparing these two authors. My first reflex was to dismiss this preposterous comparison of two excellent artists and my second thought was, well, if we were never to propose such a comparison, there would be very little that is interesting to converse about. My reconsideration came about when I realized I was greatly enjoying this performance.
I love his conclusion, which begins at 1:43:44 and ends with a marvelous sentiment that sums up my feelings: You can compare and contrast geniuses all day long, but in the end, we're fortunate to have any at all.
Yes, that's the whole point.
Bronte is acclaimed as genius purely from a traditional standpoint. Modern reader has a lot to learn about human nature in Austen´s books and a lot to learn about the literary style of romatism from Bronte´s novel
@@panchitaobrian1660 I love your comment.
Persuasion by Austen is a gripping novel in that the heroine sees the love of her life slipping away and the hope of a marriage of lovers gone forever. It breaks my heart. The ending sends you to the moon in happiness. Who can write words that take you on such a trip?
Wentworth's letter to Anne is achingly beautiful.
@@homediva5689 How anyone can say that Austen's characters aren't passionate is beyond me. OK. Darcy isn't. His 2nd proposal sounds almost like a business deal. But men like Wentworth and Brandon simply ooze passion.
Persuasion gives me false hope :,)
Persuasion is my favourite of all her books. It's heartbreaking to feel as Anne must feel throughout the novel and her healing and joy in the way it ended. My favourite part is when it's referenced that men do the writing and when they leave they have much to do so have no time to look back. Whereas women, at a time in history when they didn't work, had only time to ponder and re-visit past hurts. Glorious.
@@voulafisentzidis8830 persuasion is my favourite also. I had read Pride and Prejudice several times, had tried and failed to get through Emma and then picked up Persuasion and devoured it quicker than any other book. It was wonderful.
I like both, Jane is light and happy, Emily is torment and storm. You can not have light without darkness, you can not have darkness without light. They are like vanilla and chocolate ice cream, both taste different but both are ice cream, delightful and I will not choose between them, but enjoy both.
Jane is not light at all. She constantly brings up the nature of marriage for money (how 1st cousins were intended to marry...eww; the eldest children were meant to ensure that the parents or, at least the mother and any children would be taken care of [as a roof over their heads] in case the father would die). Watch Pride & Prejudice, and you pick new details after viewing it a few times. Really, not sarcastic.
Jane's writing is in direct rejection of the Gothic novels of her time i.e Byron. Her writings reward those who do not fall to baseless passion. that said her romantic heroes still follow the path of love and marriage for love. a concept pretty uncommon in her time. The real art in her writing though is her sarcastic wit in criticizing British hierarchy and aristocracy. plus her dialogue is just amazing and so real like the gentlemen said.
This is an over-generalization. Sense and Sensibility, not discussed here at all, has much more light and shade than Austen's other novels, which is why it's my favorite, even though it's not as brilliantly witty as P&P (which I also love, as it is delightful). The second time I read S&S was right after a breakup, and it was emotionally devastating. It's also the least to do with 'courtship and marriage' of all her novels, it's much more about the sisters, their relationship, and growing up.
Emma
Yes, there is a lot of dark in Mansfield Park and Persuasion too. Just how unkind the world can be.
I just have to say, that even if I like the Brontes better than Austen, I would have voted for Austen on this one, because the of the John Mullan. He was so fantastic here, I'm going to buy that book that he wrote about Jane Austen
Greetings, my dear friends! Today I wanted to release a new video, but something went wrong. Many videos did not want to open during installation. Ultimately, it was missing large parts of the video. And I made a decision that I do not want to show you bad work. I want you to say "wow" after every video. I hope you can understand me. Thank you for staying to watch me, no matter what! Take care of yourself.
Sincerely, Victor!
I love John Mullen's support of Jane Austen; it's always wonderful to hear someone who understands and loves her so much!
He is brilliant.
I am so happy I came across this debate. Admittedly I am more of an Austen fan, but I now have more of an appreciation for both writers.
Also the actors were brilliant.
Wonderful. Thanks for uploading.
Jane Austen to me is the prim, trim, perfectly manicured English garden.
The Bronte sisters are the wild, untrammelled forest - lushly beautiful by day, serenely ornate at twilight and dark and mysterious by night.
There is really no sense in comparing the two. Each has its own blissful delight to offer.
Exactly
Agree they’re quite different writers but I wouldn’t describe Austen in the way you have as she covered pre marital sex, emotional abuse and unrequited love before her perfectly manicured gardens could be arrived at!
Perfectly said 👏. Well said. We see the England that we all know through Jane Austen, whereas Emily Brontë shows you a much darker, secretive world of passion & tragedy.
You have misread Austen
@@AllTheArtsy
How?
I was very irritated by the repeated sneer that Austen was only “romantic” because all her novels end with marriage. She is the very opposite of romantic and merciless in probing the shortcomings of marriage. In that very lecture we saw the scene between Mr and Mrs Bennet, in which his early romantic attraction has given way to the awareness he has married a very silly woman. On the other hand Bronte strikes me as all that is wrong with romanticism: the principal criterion for judgement is intensity of feeling, to the extent to making an abusive sadist a hero.
Astute observation.
agreed
Jackson Richardson, "making an abusive sadist a hero" that is also known as creating an antihero and of course there is nothing 'unromantic' about an antihero.
Yes, as Amy Ram mentions, he was an antihero, not a hero, and this is part of makes "Wuthering Heights" so iconic: it did not have a focus on a conventional hero or heroine. By the way, you have misspelled "judgment."
They don't mean "romantic". They mean Romantic, the philosophical and artistic movement that took place roughly around 1790-1832, the period during which Austen and Bronte were writing. Bronte's work was much more Romantic (not romantic, which has to do with love and idealism), meaning that she was much more interested in making the reader sympathize with flawed, even villainous, characters. In very rough terms, Romanticism had to do with the importance of the individual, freedom, and feeling, while Austen was more of a Neoclassicist, which stressed the importance of poise and elegance. There are certainly Romantic features about Austen, but Bronte was more of a full blown Romantic. That's what they mean when they say Romantic.
The first half of WUTHERING HEIGHTS does not take place in Victorian times as the Bronte advocate says. Also, she misses the fact that while a moody and atmospheric novel, there are funny parts in it (that often go unnoticed). Also, super important is the fact that the two narrators are both unreliable so the reader must read between the lines--an element that further makes the book unique and way ahead of its time. The Bronte advocate misses the point about Austen too. The topic of marriage is more about survival than finding a "happy ever after" in a frivolous way. Why she wants to diss Austen for this is odd since WUTHERING HEIGHTS ends with a happy ever after marriage.
None of Wuth Heights takes place in Victorian times.. its contemporary with much of Austen's early work which she wrote in the late 18th Century
Yes, very correct!
Jane Austen hands down. Bronte's novel is brilliant but it is a one off and it does not have the wit and the piercing intelligence that one sees in Austen's novels. Austen's characters, like Shakespeare's, reveal all of man's foibles, strengths, weaknesses, charm, intelligence, folly, tragedy, etc. There is so much depth in Austen's novels, especially when taken as a whole body of work. As John Mullan noted, there is not just one novel to assess Austen's brilliance. Bronte's work is a love story with underlying themes, brilliantly realized, but it does not transcend centuries in the way Austen's work does. Austen's work is universal and timeless. Bronte's work is stuck in the 19th century with it's Romantic Period themes. If there had been no Jane Austen, it makes you wonder if there would have been the Bronte sisters. She paved the way for women novelists throughout the 19th century and onward with her genius.
I think the same
Nineveh
Whilst I agree with most of your points. Brontë was dead by the time she was 30 so didn’t have much opportunity to write many novels. Her life was so depressingly tragic, she probably couldn’t muster the comedy of Austen.
I agree. This comparison simply makes no sense! They are both women and they wrote English books. The similarities end there. A more interesting debate would have been Austen VS Shakespeare.
Its one off because she died. Death does that to plans.
Very interesting debate! I understand the comparison between Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights and Jane Austen's greater works but I do not get the point the competition since both were geniuses. It is impossible and unnecessary to find out who was the better genius since it is a matter of taste whether one prefers Bach, Beethoven or Mozart. It is like comparing a flute with a trumphet in the orchestra of life.
Thomas Engqvist baap re...itni gehrai
Wonderful way to put it, Mr. Engqvist.
i agree, but these types of things are enjoyable as well as learning opportunities
I didn’t view this video as a “competition” as much as a reflection of both novelists’ styles and experience of life during their time.
While it is set up as a competition, it’s really just a fun platform for engaging a knowledgeable discussion of two authors. It is fun to compare and contrast authors from similar periods.
I just want to say, I cannot recommend highly enough the book A Jane Austen Education, by William Deresiewicz. He does an incredible job of analyzing and explaining the deeper lessons in Jane Austen's writing, and exposing the powerful emotions. Once you look at her works in that light, you no longer see them as "romance novels", where the only goal and happy ending is marriage. There's so much more to her than that.
Thank you! Am dashing to the library to get it now!
Just got it from the library! Cant wait to dive in!! Thxxxx
Thank you for the recommendation
Yes, I picked it up in a bookstore in Portland and now read it at least once a year. Deresiewicz does a wonderful job of distilling the deep wisdom inside Jane Austen's deceptively light stories.
Austen is about marriage but also about money and power. How can anyone miss that?
And, of course, something that I haven’t seen anyone bring up in the comments is the satirical nature of her novels, which allowed her to very subtly critique society within her works which was a feat indeed for a woman in the Regency
and social class!
@@noorbashir577 YASSSSS! My satirical queen of queens!!
Austen is about LOVE. Marriage comes with money and power in her books.
Stupidity?
As a lover of novels, and literature, this was an absolute treat and pleasure to watch. The actors were simply stunning with their recitals, and both the debatees were a credit to the sides they were representing! Thoroughly enjoyable. Thanks so much for having this! :)
Emily is for those with great emotionality, for those who love Nature even in its threatening aspects, for those who understand the underground depth of the human heart. Emily is for unconventional people, as was she. I love you Emily!
Emily isn't grounded in the depth of human nature itself but driven by flights of fancy by a very imaginative but inexperienced mind. That's why in the end her novel rings hollow. True depth comes from understanding the hypocritical sordidness of human nature.
This man made me undust my Austen books! ❤ Persuasion hello old friend!
When I was younger, I preferred Bronte's novel because everything sounded more vivid and passionate, but as the years went by, I began to enjoy Austen's stories more and more, particularly her latest works. Beneath all that comedy, impeccable settings, sugary words and apparent happy endings, we sometimes overlook how brilliant she was in everything else: her social critique, how she tackled difficult topics with apparent levity, her disenchanted view of the world... The more I know of Jane Austen, the more I appreciate her work. Bronte imprinted her youth and vigor in her writing, but Austen is more mature and subtle... and yet, we can still feel there's a strong pulse behind it all, someone who desperately needs to live beyond her own confinement. Mrs. Smith, the sickly widow in Persuasion is perhaps the character that represents her best: someone who has lived in the world long enough to understand how people around her think and feel, who sees and suffers injustice, who is confined because of sickness and poverty, all the while depending on the charity of others, and still someone who finds comfort in the little things that other people never fully appreciate.
I think the enjoyment and understanding of a novel depends on how old you are when you read it. I read WH three times separated by many years and enjoyed it more each time. It has been called both the greatest love story and the greatest novel written by a woman. (As a man I liked 'War and Peace' more, but WH second of all the classic 19th century novels I have read.)
Growing up, I have always been a voracious reader, but I tended to stick to specific genres, SciFi/Fantasy/Adventure/Western/Horror/Thriller/Crime etc. I was forced to read WH at school and I absolutely detested it. At the same time i started reading Jane Austen after i saw the 1996 movie of Emma and Jane Austen became one of favourite authors.
I think it's unfair to pit these two authors against each other. The brilliance of Emily Bronte's writing is its emotion. She evokes ambiance and primal feelings. For all that it tends to appeal to adolescents, it is an incredibly sophisticated novel. I don't re-read it often (about once every 15 years) because it is exhausting; my accumulated life experience causes me to see the characters' toxicity and despair more clearly each time.
Jane Austen's brilliance is cerebral. Her deftness of language requires her readers to work a little harder than usual to pinpoint evidence of her characters' emotions. I can re-read her books every few years and delight in something new each time.
If these two were painters, Emily Bronte would be committing bold colors to the canvas with a palette knife, while Jane Austen would be creating an intricate tableau with a million tiny dots.
Ana, You write: "The more I know of Jane Austen, the more I appreciate her work. Bronte imprinted her youth and vigor in her writing, but Austen is more mature and subtle..." This is undoubtedly true - though though it seems just a little unfair, probably the inevitable result of a comparison between a writer with a single great novel and a small volume of poems pieced together by her sister after her death with a writer who wrote many novels and had eleven more years of life to write them in: Emily died at aged 30; Jane was 41.
1:20:51
Kate Mosse gets Austen terribly, terribly wrong. Asserting that Wuthering Heights is about 'real passion and love', rather than 'simply courtship' (i.e. Jane Austen novels) is to fall into a very common (and basic) trap. It also ignores the passions simmering beneath the surfaces of works like Emma and Pride and Prejudice - and the love of Persuasion that has survived 7 years of separation 'after all hope is gone'.
Also, what's wrong with a novel being about courtship? I guess we'll also have to write off about half of Shakespeare's canon, all E.M. Forster, Edith Wharton and Henry James.
Jane Austen is a screaming bore. She was a great stylist but she either had nothing interesting to say, or she was too cowardly to say it. I'll take Emily Bronte over her any day.
profd65 You didn’t read the meaning of Austen’s text. She demonstrates an inner strength as opposed to boorishness. It’s like the singer that only knows how to belt and can’t comprehend dynamics.
Bronte's Wuthering Heights are hardly about real passion and love. It's too exagerrated passion and sensational love. Novel has all traits of gothic literature and of Romanticism period of great big loud exaggerated emotions that have nothing to do with reality. So I find her argument not convincing at all. Austin is definitely not only about courtship, but about relationship (silly, complicated, nuanced, confused, funny et cet). She is about reality and real life more than Bronte. Though some people (especially, impressionable young minds) want big and loud emotions and sensational events because those quickly draw you in. And because it's escapist fantasy and many people want to escape from mundane very often (especially, in our day and age). But, imho, great art must be about reality and real people. Escapism doesn't teach you anything.
profd65 it’s not that she was too cowardly to say it - context is vital in this argument. Austen had the privilege of writing under her real name, thus presenting herself as a woman, and because of that, society had limited what she could say because she needed to protect her reputation. As the Brontes wrote under pseudonyms, they were able to expand their content more
@@profd65 or you missed the point?
What a wonderfully entertaining way of spending nearly 2 hours.
Bravo to all on the stage! What a great evening of entertainment and education. Thank you
Hace muchísimos años; cuando en el colegio religioso nos prohibían leer, incluso diarios y revistas. Mi madre viuda de 28 años de edad, vino a visitarme al internado. Salimos a recorrer las calles de Lima, y noté que tenía un libro en su cartera. Ella se dio cuenta de mi interés y me lo alcanzó, diciéndome: «Me lo han obsequiado como una propuesta de amistad..., pero nunca pude pasar del 1er capitulo.» Llegamos a la casa de una tía y salieron a realizar compras. En ese lapso, leí los tres primeros capítulos y quedé impactado. Tenía once años de edad y era la primera vez que leía algo. Tuve que esperar cerca de treinta años, para comprarlo y terminar de leerlo; porque no recordaba el nombre de la autora y menos el título. En una feria de libros, preguntando a vendedores expertos y con la anuencia de ojearlos lo encontré. Era "Cumbres Borrascosas" de Emily Bronte.
I've forgotten how much I loved Wuthering Heights. Those passages that were chosen for reading are so powerful.'He is more myself than I am' is a line that has something I cannot describe. It's amazing that it is said by such a selfish character, and yet I can't think of other two characters that have such a bond. And that simile is so great. The whole book is so haunting. I've read two Austen's novels and might read more in the future, but there is something so delicaate in them. I'm not saying I dislike it, but I keep wanting to tell them,'scream, for God's sake! Be angry and vindictive.' I know people say Emily's characters don't develop, but I like that. I think that I read novels in search of emotion. I love hating Heathcliff, I love being able to feel sorry for Edgar. I want to sympathise with those characters, to know that they feel what I feel. So far I haven't been able to do that with Austen's characters. My opinion might change after reading Persuasion, though. And I actually don't mind happy endings. I love well-earnt happy endings. And after reading something as dark and haunting as Wuthering Heights, Austen's novel is just the thing you need. Wuthering Heights can be emotionally draining. I think the same is true of Daphne du Maurier's works.
I was talking about Catherine as it is her words that are quoted so there is no no need to explain anything to me.
Deep and deeper
Wasn't Austen's Northanger Abbey a satire/parody of gothic fiction? I'm sure this kind of debate had been going on before even then, but with other gothic writers in her lifetime.
It was also a defence of them.
John' defence was better. He does get Austen's novels and he is very gracious in explaining the themes in them.
he also highlights the extremely important points of austin works like her wit, her ability to take us into the mind of her characters and the excellent dialogue.
Hi mam
Hi mam can you help to mee i do no english speaks you chat with mee pls you language very super
Mam can you can you tell about WhatsApp and Facebook number
@Dexy Nash can you tell whatsapp number
Austen readers didn't do justice to the text excerpts as they were unable to control their own emotions (amusement/laughing/giggling) during the dramatic reading during the coach ride.
Austen is not only about marriage - it is about behaviour the melodrama of human self denial and self misunderstanding.
No comparison should be there between those impeccable storytellers .I salute them.
The construction of Wuthering Heights is very complicated. The interweaving of past and present narrative is brilliant. Charlotte's response to her sister's book was to say the least parochial, excusing her sister's genius as accidental and not representative of a 'simple country girl'. Demeaning to say the least. Everything that is Emily is Wuthering Heights. But how that brilliant woman created such a remarkable work of art is still a mystery.
See Min Lim, fun fact, but The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is, in some ways, Jane Austen fanfiction. That's not an insult, either. Charlotte Bronte actually wrote in a letter to a friend that the premise of Tenant was "what if Fanny Price (Mansfield Park) actually HAD married Mr. Crawford? How would that have ended?" and so Tenant of Wildfell Hall was born.
@See Min Lim Well... she was wrong. Caused a right old hoohaa. How DARE a woman leave her abusive husband. Hang her!!!!
The construction of Wuthering Heights is a clusterfuck😂😂😂😂
Charlotte trashed/erased/changed both her sisters work. Maybe even burnt Emily's next novel . I am no fan of Charlotte .
Charlotte was being protective. She didn't want her sisters - or their memories - dragged over the coals. It absolutely would have happened in those days.
I don't know where the people who said Brontë is more famous abroad than Austen are gathering their information from. How about you ask a real foreigner about that?
The truth is, people in Asia, especially those who are in my age group (20 something) and younger, don't read classic english novels that much, and yet people know who Jane Austen is. As for Emily Brontë, I didn't even know she was the arthur of Wurthering Heights until today (thought it was Charlotte Brontë) and I'm actually the lone few that read lots of classic novels.
There would have been more of a debate if it were Jane Austen vs. Charlotte Brontë, in my opinion, because Jane Eyre is a very popular novel. But I will choose Austen every time, because she's the only author I've ever wanted to read through all her works simply because I was hooked to one.
GoYankeeBioHazard I totally agree. It's the same thing here in Brazil.
Who cares what the opinion of an Asian is?
Well in Vietnam Wuthering Heights is spectacularly popular, especially with my parents generation. Now Jane Austen is more famous among the young because of all the movies & tv but everybody knows of WH
Jane Austen all the way. I have studied both authors and have read most of their books (referring to Austen), but my mind had been made up long ago because of her humor, compassion, and subtle way of poking fun of her society.
There is a term for that Cognitive Dissonance.
Bronte wins hands down!
I think both writers are greatest in their fields - Emily Bronte, with just a single novel made something absolutely fantastic, headstrong and disturbing in every way; whereas Austen wrote some very humorous social commentary, especially about the storm business of courtship. They are the best at what they do. I am always a die hard Austen fan, but I also love the book Wuthering Heights - which I think is miles better than Jane Eyre. Wuthering Heights is unsettling and very strong in its imagery. I love it all - whereas Austen makes me feel a lot of things; the books make me feel very passionately about courtship and the very nature of love and how very easily some people can be manipulated by their feelings.
With the Bronte sisters, the heaths are central to their stories...and, they're written further into the stern era of Vicky! You know, what I mean (nothing wrong with that); for me, the moors setting is really depressing. I am absolutely a huge fan of Austen's; and not because they end in the typical success of getting married (esp. to a rich man). She was satirical, to a point, of the aristocracy (Liz would not have married, or thought of Darcy in a romantic or even fond way) which I know dates back centuries (writers had to be careful how they expressed their satire). Love, love, love Jane Austen. I am sure she would have been shocked and pleased how we all enjoy her creations!
@@marinazagrai1623 Austen deserves credit for her originality--she and Walter Scott invented the modern English novel--but her books are plain vanilla whereas Emily Bronte's is Rocky Road with chunks of dark chocolate, (lol). WH is one of the very few perfect classic novels, along with 'War and Peace', 'Madame Bovary', 'Silas Marner', 'David Copperfield', and 'Henry Esmond'. Read WH again, dissect the interlocking parts of the nested narratives, plot the 1700s timeline, and appreciate the happy ending for the second generation Cathy Linton and Hareton Earnshaw.
'Jane Eyre' is almost perfect except for the implausible random coincidence of the last section where she travels destitute halfway across England and faints in front of the house of her--own unknown cousins!.
@@rogerpropes7129 I didn’t imply Austen is the best, just the later 19th century is depressing to me. Women novelists of the era depict subjects that men can’t in the same way. I happen to have an arts degree, nothing fancy, in which I had to take a lot of lit classes…and I chose Brit lit so I learned to dissect novels of any era. I am not a fan of the romantic period. Austen was mostly in the Classical period.
I didn't care for Jane Eyre at 13, but at 16 I tried again and was immersed in it.
Over all I prefer Austen. I can barely live through all of the emotion and bad behavior and bad choices of the characters in Wuthering Heights. As another commenter said, I have to be in the mood for that.
Austen makes me laugh, wuthering heights rips your guts out and stomps all over them. BTW, WH in my mind, is not a romance. It's psychological.
This was very enjoyable! The actors were exceptional, and added such nuance to the excerpts they read. The debaters were also very persuasive. So well done!
As to the relative value of the two authors, I can only say they are both unique! No one does what Jane Austen did better than she, and likewise, Emily Brontë was one of a kind who drew a vivid response from her readers, unlike that which anyone had done before.
I deeply admire both. But I must say: Wuthering Heights exhausts me! I've read it and re-read it, but it wrings me out and leaves me feeling battered emotionally. I must be in a certain mood before I dare approach it, as the debater said who argued on behalf of Jane Austen, because by the end of reading Wuthering Heights you're going to be in that mood, like it or not. With Jane Austen, I can pick up one of her novels while in a rotten mood, but by the end I'll definitely feel better. That is the totally selfish and wimpy reason I much prefer to read Jane Austen.
What is the rationale for feeling obligated to read an author who emotionally batters you? Isn't that the equivalent of remaining in an abusive relationship? Authors are free to write whatever they please. They have every right to produce an emotionally and even spiritually abusive product if they choose. In like fashion, I am under no obligation to read such literature and will not do so if it does not please me.
@@g.moeller308 it's about more than pleasure, Wuthering heights is frustrating, and emotionally draining but at the same time I am taken by how a writer can hold that power. How an atmosphere of intrigue and exhaustion can be created with such unlikeable characters, it's magic.
"Totally selfish and wimpy"? You must have very low self-esteem. It's called "CIVILIZED."
Guinn Berger I thoroughly disliked 'Wuthering Heights' as it seemed to be a wringing-out of the bitterness of Emily Bronte's dispiriting social status. I much preferred her sister, Charlotte Bronte, because her books were slightly less caustic but just as poignant.
I felt similarly about Jane Austen as Charlotte Bronte, and think they would have made a better comparison, quite frankly.
@@nora22000 I agree. Jane Eyre was my favourite Cinderella-type story, until I grew up and realised that Edward Rochester was a selfish git. Jane, on the other hand, was amazing in her strength, moral fibre, and ability to survive with her integrity intact.
Why, when allowed to ask questions, do so many people refuse to do so and instead give their opinion?
because people are more interested in hearing their opinion than someone's elses. :-)
Couldn't agree more! Also: any man who proudly announces he is not in need of a microphone is always, always in need of a microphone
Go to any academic conference and hear "questions" that consist solely of an exhibition of the "questioners" knowledge.
Jane Austen would have had a field day about that.
Emily Bronte, not so much.
As a lad from Haworth, having just read Wuthering Heights again for the umpteenth time coupled with a passion for everything 'Kate Bush' - this debate has inspired me, for the first time, to read Jane Austen. I'd love to see a debate on the comparative merits of Thomas Hardy & Dickens.
Emily Bronte hands down. Yes Austen will be voted best, because there are five good novels to go at, which all appeal to slightly different people. But the passion, incisive portraits and just sheer living life. Too many of Austen's characters are so ordinary. In Wuthering Heights you live the people, you want to meet everyone not just the nice people, because when you meet them, you are living life to the full.
I think Emily's people "live life to the full" in the way inexperienced teenagers imagine living life to the full. Can be beguiling but in the end there is no actual depth.
Emily Brontë all the way
I've never read a so-called romance novel in my life, but Wuthering Heights caught me and held me, surprised me and then absolutely blew me away. And has continued to do so in readings over the past 20 years.
It's actually a comedy. If you understand that then you understand emily
Jane always peopled her books with characters you just want to slap across the room. Not villains, but just as annoying as possible. Emma's father, Mr. Collins, Mary (in Persuasion), come to mind.
what’s wrong with mr wood house?
Persuasion is my favorite Jane Austen book and I was delighted with the selection he chose for the actors to read.
To be honest you would put up Charlotte rather than Emily against Jane. Jane wrote more and better novels and so would win. Though Jane Eyre v Pride and Predjudice would be the ultimate heavyweight championship.
If there is one good book written by a female it's Emily's.
Jane Austen wrote better novels than Emily Bronte? That's horseshit. I'd rather read the phone book than another Jane Austen novel.
Poor George Eliot gets no appreciation in these debates.
I love Jane austen's simple yet complicated style, I've never read anything like it. Each time I read it, it just get better. There are times I'm terribly confused, but i do notice Jane's excellence in dialogue; I never knew before her that you can make something simple and even daily events so exciting and complicated; I'm never the same since. Now, I look at my day anticipating events enthusiastically. I know I can make this day great to the simple things and struggles. I just couldn't expressed how much I like her books, especially Emma.
I think it is requirement to be patient when reading Jane Austen. Or perhaps any classics (or contemporaries too) really. It's just one need an appreciation with the simple things, and read between the lines. Though I do not compare them; they're equally geniuses. I supposed it's a matter of taste. Or mood?
These debates probably just boils down to "tastes" and what seems resonant to one's life, right now. For example, people who have lived a smooth-sailing life would probably relate more to Austen's world, whereas there are people (like me) who have grown up as outcasts, in abusive households, and in generally direr circumstances that we found our solace in Emily's wild, storm-ravaged moors... because dancing halls and dinner parties almost seem to be too cruel a fantasy to try on (but hey, that's me; i'm not speaking for all who've experienced tough stuff in their life). However, to dismiss Emily's writing as "purely entertainment" is just as painful a barb as dismissing Austen's as "about balls and stuff." It does disservice to both women and their works.
I for one, would have to disagree that there is no depth in Emily Bronte's writing. Having read them both, Bronte stirred in me something that is primeval, defying coherent explanations. It's repulsing and captivating all at once. Meanwhile, in Pride and Prejudice, I found myself being amazed more by the witty prose and the elaborate games going on. Sure, there is feeling, but the feeling is quite fleeting; I was happy for certain moments of the book, especially when Lizzie realizes her mistakes and Darcy achieves his change, but it was still a "book" for me. Wuthering Heights, however, felt like a tempestuous story from somewhere else, somewhere forbidden that Emily Bronte penned down for her sake and for posterity. It was unapologetic; it was bestial. I read WH at 12 years old, and P&P at 14. Both have entertained me immensely, but Bronte's work just... hits me in a different way.
Austen's works, while very witty and masterpieces at dissecting motives and conflicts and power, seem to be sanitized or restrained. This is no surprise, really, because she *is* writing within the restrained society of her time (and making fun of it at that). While I appreciate her satire, the characters are still there, repressed and confined. Even in their inner moments, rarely do we get a blatant smudge or dirt in them. The darkness is still served carefully.
In Bronte's work, I appreciate how she absolutely rips that facade away and doesn't play the game at all. And perhaps that's where the differences between these two authors totally divide people even centuries after. Here is a lady who embraces the darkness for all its monstrosity, unfettered by society, with her story set in inhospitable nature few would want to be in. Emily Bronte writes about the unsavory parts of life, something a lot would choose not to look at. Her choice of intensity isn't purely for shock value however. The layers of symbolism and meaning that could have only been weaved together through a writer's intuitive power and raw honesty fuels the whole of Wuthering Heights. It wouldn't be Wuthering Heights if Catherine isn't this selfish girl we've all loathed at some point; it would be weaker if Heathcliff has been anything less than this monster. People could be so tragically flawed in real life. It is a horrible truth. However, most seem to miss that Catherine and Heathcliff reached that point due to their poor, miserably childhood lives. It's even more heartbreaking when in the end, Emily "ends" this dark cycle by redeeming Catherine and Heathcliff through their parallels: Cathy and Hareton, without truly explaining how or why. I love how it leaves me with more questions than answers, the themes and messages resonating with the soul, rather than being fully captured by the mind.
Yes, Emily might not be super witty or snarky, but she is passionate, poetic, and true. Just as true as Austen is, unapologetically true to their stories. For a girl in her time, it's amazing she allowed herself to be *this* passionate. It's amazing that characters like Heathcliff came from a seemingly reclusive young woman. Her study of human psychology might not have the "finesse" or elegance that Austen has, but it delivers something more crude and raw, brutally honest and devastating. So yeah, if you much prefer civility and politeness, you would fit better with Austen. But if you prefer wildness and passion, Bronte is the writer you'd pick. Due to life circumstances (and because I can't help but root for the underdog), I always pick Bronte. Wuthering Heights changed my life so much, and daresay, prepared me for a lot of sh*t that 12 year old me didn't know would face in the coming years. So yeah, there are tons of lessons to learn in WH, but it takes all of one's soul to join the madness in those pages.
and a wild Demelza Poldark appears to do a reading
How could a writer be so clueless to the point of saying that Jane Austen is "confined"?? My gosh! Jane Austen's text's filled with irony, and even its "prince charming happy end" she talked about is ironical (if you really peel the layers)... It broadens itself everytime you read it. It's a very good debate, though :) I really liked it.
Ausen had a brain. Bronte had a ... I'll say "gut."
Although I ADORE both authors, for me Ms. Austen holds my ❤️ forever! Loved the readings by my favorite actors too! Thank you!💖💖💖💖
Jane Austen is amazingly intelligent and humoristic. Certainly one of the best ever and mostly undervalued esp among the male gender. I love both Bronte sisters, but Jane will always be the best for me
For me, Wuthering Heights will always be "the one", even tho between the both of them is no "winner" because Austen is incomparable and unique and so is Bronte.
Personally, I enjoy both writers, depending on my mood but, to me, Austen will always be the best. If you think that the Bronte sisters wrote on more serious subjects than Jane Austen did, or that Austen is all about balls and drawing rooms, you haven't been reading closely enough. She deals with premarital sex (Pride and Prejudice), unwed motherhood (Sense and Sensibility), emotional abuse (Mansfield Park), infidelity (again, Mansfield Park), forbidden romance (Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion), and the consequences of choosing a partner unwisely (every bloody thing she ever wrote, lol). She writes about good people, terrible people, and people never forced to chose between good and evil; she writes about good decisions, bad decisions, and every kind of decision in between. She writes about knowing when to stand on your convictions and knowing when to bend. The difference is that she doesn't need to beat you over the head with misery to get her point across.
Plus, unlike anything by the Bronte's that I've ever read, Jane Austen knows how to make a reader smile and even laugh in a way that the Brontes and their misery porn never really could.
You literally just referred to the Brontes as “misery porn”. This is the most depressing internet comment I’ve seen today, congratulations.
@@jessica_jam4386 i mean she has a point.
cassie earle I’m sorry I just disagree. I love Jane Austen and Emily and Charlotte Bronte, calling the Brontes writing “misery porn” is just as dismissive and simplistic a criticism as the og commented mentioned people claiming Jane Austen only writes about going to balls and getting married. You don’t have to like it, we all have our personal preferences of course, but some people are going to really find that kind of critique lame.
Kat K Austen maybe knows how to make a reader smile or even laugh but doesn’t know how to make them feel. And feel in a good way.
@@LovelyDay11 Speak for yourself. I'll never fail to feel sympathy for Anne Elliot as she watches the man she loves court another woman (one she knows will make him miserable), or for Fanny Price as she is abused, manipulated, and gaslit by the family members she should be able to trust and rely on.
Wuthering heights gives me a joy i never found in other books.
Ah yes...agreed . It's my all time favorite. And one of the most Romantic classics. But they should've compared Austen and Charlotte Bronte
So pleased to see "Georgiana Darcy" from "Death Comes to Pemberley" in this. She's a great actress.
i loved that minniseries. have you seen the actress in Poldark. excellent.
Wuthering Heights is a pretty violent novel. I can understand Heathcliff's character. Essentially abandoned as a child, lost the only father he had, looked down upon. I can see how he could become so violent. But he goes off the deep end. Too violent for me.
That's the idea. Sometimes people DO go off the deep end.
Heathcliff wasn't intended to be 100% palatable. He's an antihero.
@@StellaWaldvogel He's the villain by the latter half of the book. Not necessarily a bad thing as the novel goes, but I at least gradually lost sympathy and simply wanted to strangle him. He was abusive towards children for the "crimes" their parents committed against him, paying back what he had to "endure" tenfold. It is a really interesting transformation, don't get me wrong, but there is nothing heroic about Heathcliff, and it can be argued that Cathy II rather than him is the protagonist of the second volume.
Give me dark, gothic, depressive, morbid tone of the Bronte sisters any day and I'm happy! ❤️❤️❤️
Bella Umbrellla yes! This comment section seems to be full of people hating on the Brontes and it makes me sad. I still love Jane Austen, don’t get me wrong. But Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights are both amazing in my mind. I love the atmospheres of both.
Yes! And Villette - sad ending, just like much of life.
Absolute masterworks.
I simply cannot imagine anything more beautiful than Jane Eyre. Anna Karenina is a work of genius...as is Jane Eyre. But Jane Eyre moves me to tears. And the beauty of her writing....simply breathtaking!!!
Stella Waldvogel Yes Villette, what a masterpiece. People overlook Villette all the time, but is a fabulous novel and certainly up there with Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre. I think Wuthering Heights, of all novels I have read, had perhaps the most visceral impact on me. It caused me to read all of the other novels by the Brontes. Raw genius. Love them, love them.
3 sisters vs 1 is not fair....emily vs jane only
as entertaining as this was I think it's technically wrong. it's like comparing two different genres of writing.
Jane Austin is the Beatles, Emily Bronte is more like Rolling Stones) or Siouxsie and the Banshees.
All the "don't know" people were Bronte fans trolling.
Austen, Austen, Austen. The characters are so varied, so full, so recognisable. Her writing witty, gripping, intelligent. Austen hands down!
How can you compare them? They were so very different as authors, one sharply ironic and queen of happy endings and the other so very gothic and poetic in her intensity. Both geniuses in their own way although my favorite author of the period will always be Charlotte Bronte.
I love English Literature
My wife said Don Quixote was better in Spanish than the English translation. I wouldn't know poquito espanol.
The whole idea of competitive ratings between two great authors bothers me. I have both on my bookshelves. It seems that this premise was used to stimulate a discussion, which is a worthy objective, but the idea that one's better then the other is pernicious. Celebrate them both.
It's not pernicious to say that one is better than another. Some things are better than other things and it's a worthwhile discussion because it's worth assessing the value of each in comparison. In this case, Emily Bronte is obviously better.
I read emily and i got upset closed the boom a few times. It is such a disturbing book. Jane on the other hand ^_^ i will love lizzy always. So both novelists have a special appeal to me and their work have a special place on my bookshelf
It isn’t really fair to pit Emily Brontë against Jane Austen as Emily only had one published novel and a few poems whereas Jane had a bigger body of work. Austen vs Charlotte Brontë would have been a better comparison.
Wonderful performances by the actors and actresses. Bravo!
I'm a 13 year old (who most definitely loves books) and I absolutely am enjoying what I have read of Pride and Prejudice so far. I've never read Wuthering heights, so for now I am firmly on Austen's side, but I must read some more Brontë (I've only read Jane Eyre) and I will rewatch this when I have!
Maebhy Howell go on
I read Wuthering Heights when I was 13 and it was no doubt the best book I've ever read! It's takes you on an emotional journey but it's so beautiful.
Maebhy Howell I have read pride and prejudice and am currently reading wuthering heights. Wuthering heights is quite more twisted and complex in comparison.
I had one summer when I was 11 or 12 when I read Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Ivanhoe, and one or two others. It was a wonderful time, discovering this whole new world. Enjoy your discoveries.
The 13 year old me didn't understand any of these books. I'm glad I renewed my interest at 23 and I'm now so thrilled about these brave works.
I don't believe in either / or--or one author against another. I know this debate is just a vehicle through which we can see some of the brilliant aspects of each of these women as writers. But it will always be "and" for me. Austin AND Bronte, either Bronte sister.
I wanted to say that Jane Austen did not "just" write about love and marriage. This is a huge misrepresentation of her work. Austen wrote about marriage because it was the only way a woman could secure a comfortable future for herself and sometimes also for her family. Jane Austen, herself, and her sister became homeless when their father died. They was completely dependent on the kindness of relatives and whatever assistance their brother could provide.
In characters like Miss Bates in Emma, the entire family of Fanny Price, and the Bennett sisters, Austen shows that a woman's security - - and even a man's - -hangs by a thread. Without the benevolent assistance of wealthy relatives, people without financial resources could suffer destitution.
Marriage wasn't mainly about romance around the turn of the 19th century. It was about securing a home and one's estate through marriage and children. Austin may have portrayed her characters as having the romantic ideal, because she herself had been in love and suffered a broken heart because that relationship did not result in marriage.
It seems strange to us, but the idea of going out and getting a job to support oneself was almost not even option for gentility. The idea of working for a living was the antithesis of gentility and respectability. One man could have a larger fortune than another, but if he gained that fortune by working in a business, even his own business, he was not considered a gentleman. He was not respected.
This is illustrated in Chapter 8 of Pride and Prejudice. Austin writes that Bingley's sisters were polite to Elizabeth to her face. But on this particular evening, when Elizabeth left the downstairs to be with Jane, who was recovering from an illness, Austen writes that they began abusing her the moment she left the room. They criticized both of Jane and Elizabeth's uncles because one was an attorney and the other had a business near cheapside. Bingley says if they had many uncles near Cheapside, it would not make Jane less attractive to him. But Darcy sums up their societies conflict between being a working man and being a gentleman with this potent statement.
"But it must very materially lessen their chance of marrying men of any consideration in the world..."
For women with no independent fortune or inheritance, getting married was not just a way to maintain or advance social position, it was the difference between financial security and destitution. Austen knew this from personal experience. She displayed marriage as a social justice issue, emphasizing the importance of marriage as a matter of life and death, as an injustice at best and tremendous hardship at worst, in their society.
It was such a necessity, that a very practical woman like Charlotte Lucas chose to marry without love or romance, simply to secure financial stability and to hopefully have children.
One of the reasons why Virginia Wolf wrote that Jane Austen was difficult to catch in the act of greatness, was that Austin's writing style had the same polite restraint expected of women in her time period. All of the emotions seethe under the surface and sometimes break out in characters like Lydia Bennett and Maria Bertram (Mansfield Park). The passions, frustrations, joys and furies are all there, but they are held in check, with great restraint.
For this reason, the novels of Austen and Bronte's Wuthering Heights make a fascinating comparison. But it is Austen AND Bronte, not Austen versus Emily Bronte. We need both, and, with an understanding of their societies and customs, we can appreciate the superlative skills of both writers.
Wholeheartedly agree. It is difficult to fully enjoy Austen adaptations for TV and cinema because they focus on the romance over the satirical or more somber elements … even Northanger Abbey features a young woman seduced, the ‘vampirism’ of a loveless marriage, and a man forced to give up his inheritance to marry for love. In Persuasion a woman suffers from severe depression, having given up her chance at a love match and facing life as a dependent spinster.
to me Emily Bronte and Wuthering Heights is a jewell in the crown of God.
This is interesting - brings an old debate with my grandmother to life. I have read the Brontes but I have read and reread Austin’s novels. My grandmother loved Wuthering Heights - I have a series of illustrations she made for the book in maybe the 60s.
Can you leave a link for the pictures???
I've loved Wuthering Heights since I was a kid. And I totally think Wolverine is Heathcliff :-p
LauraOlsonBlue me toooo.. haha
Wow I love that comment. Agree with you...❤
I find it ironic that Jane Austin novels are all about discernment especially when it comes to marriage and friendships. I cannot believe that in this day and age people still defend novels that promote and defend toxic people and actions and encourage women to accept this co dependency as LOVE! Jane Eyres Rochester is full of deceit and error! He could have gotten an annulment from the Church of England and yes they had them in those days!
Bronte is very ill served by the simplistic analysis presented by her advocate. For example, Nelly is not the good Victorian servant. She disobeys her master several times and knows she is doing wrong. Bronte lets her narrate most of the novel, but also makes her into a character as morally complicated as she does the others. There's no need to oppose Austen and Bronte. Both wrote great novels.
i'm only 15 mins in but this feels like it's going to be a wonderful debate! and you can tell how relaxed and warm the vibe was. oooh i hope it turns out as exciting as i am anticipating it to be :)
AUSTEN'S novel, MANSFIELD PARK, condemns slavery. Inheritance laws, unjust and gender biased rules and myths, the folly of straying from core values, the delusions of the elite, her respect and faith in the power of love, are all important themes repeated in her writings. Austen protests slavery, offering reasonable argument and indisputable human truths, using the calm voice and nonthreatening Fanny poses questions to Sir Bertram. Tom incurs illness, induced by trauma, the Bertam's repugnant 'business' in the West Indies poisons Tom, and nearly kills him, and shatters the family's complacency. Austen emerges as a powerful voice for human rights and social change. AUSTEN represents hope for women, men, and our future. Love for humankind shaped her words, hilarious irony and subtle, pointed satire kindly reveals our foibles, prideful flaws, and celebrates our triumphs. Austen makes us laugh, and question the status quo. The power of persuasion is indisputable, we must always think for ourselves, and with reason and compassion.
I was first drawn to Wuthering Heights when I saw that 1940's movie.....later I read the book and many years later I saw how Hethcliff was so twisted....the novel was dark and twisted. Now when I read Jane Austin, her novels especially Persuation and Emma was a clever tapastry of events....Emma, the humor and intricacy of events is rich, I get more from the stories the more I read them over and over. And also, give me Charlotte over Emily please.
Yes.....Charlotte!..... what a beautiful soul she must be!!!
That 1939 movie that made a star out of Olivier is the worst adaptation of a book I have ever seen!
@Randy White The film was set in the 1840s when the book was written, but the book is set in he 1700s, Emily's grandparents' generation; It was totally miscast, Cathy Earnshaw and Heathcliff were teenagers, Isabella Linton was a key character, it told only half of the novel, (the book has a happy ending for Cathy Linton and Hareton Earnshaw), and Sam Goldwyn (Smuel Gelbfisch) surely never read it. Go read it again.
Those "Wuthering Heights" actors are so splendid here! They brought me to tears, which is a rare thing in a movie or play. They are both great writers, but I definitely agree that Emily Bronte is greater--she really moved the novel forward as an art form.
The actress reading Cathy Earnshaw's lines is amazing.
what's her name? can't find it.
@@jennekalundeen8302 Mariah Gale
If Jane Austin and Emely Bronte are Queens of Literature then what about George Eliot?
the Empress lol
This was so very good! But how can we ensure to have more productions like this for all to see and experience? This debate opened my eyes to not only the brilliance of these two authors, but perhaps more importantly, it showcased how best to use platforms like RUclips, etc. for artistic objectives.
If those 2 geniuses were alive now, they would be sipping tea giggling out how rubbish this debate have come to.
Light Vs dark
Love Vs pain
Marriage Vs independent
For god sake without both of them, there is no beauty to talk about or compared on..
I love them both equally❤️❤️
I"m annoyed with the Bronte advocate who sees the world as a male vs female battleground.
I hold that Austen created a whole new genre with her genius. The Bronte sisters wrote gothic novels. There's really no comparison.
Didn't Jane Austen take a jab at the gothic genre in Northanger Abbey?
njits789 She did! That novel was a hoot! I still hold that the Bronte sisters wrote gothic novels, but they elevated it into literature and created classics. I didn't mean to denigrate the sisters' accomplishments in any way, shape or form. I realized after I wrote the comment some people might think I did. Comparing authors is a tricky business; someone's always going to come out on top.
Don't worry, I didn't think you denigrated anybody. :)
@@njits789 yes jane was basically rebelling against the very popular Gothic genre of her time.
@@cassieearle9196 If I had never read any Jane Austen I know I would have missed out. I read all her novels again and again, especially Emma and Persuasion. Ive read the Bronte sisters once, have no desire to re-read them and I'm certain they have added nothing to my inner life. Why they are debating who is the better author is beyond me.
For me neither. I would always say George Eliot. However, I do think that both Jane Austen and Emily Bronte are fantastic writers; but in a sense, they are too diametrically opposed for this debate to work.
I agree. Eliot stands far above so many of the Rom/Vic authors (ignoring the focus on 'queens' this debate felt was necessary - these women all stand toe-to-toe with any of their bollocked contemporaries). She managed to unify Romantic and Enlightenment thought so impressively. And NO she is not a prude or boring (or anti feminist, I feel like she was conflicted about encouraging the same resilience that left her with so much suffering), she just tells the truth and knew that it usually fell somewhere in between agony and boredom. It is a crime that she was denied Poets Corner for reasons of morality when half of them, including her contemporary Dickens, were shagging like rabbits.
I adore Austin and George Elliot. I love Charlotte Bronte. But I really dislike withering heights. I can't relate to the story, I feel no sympathy for the characters and I don't like the writing style. For me it fails on every level. The 3 I like are giving me valuable friendly advise about life. They have served me almost as extensions of religious guidance. But what am I supposed to learn to improve myself from withering heights?
I don't care for that blonde hair woman talking bad about Christianity. That wasn't needed.
Both authors were daughters of Christian pastors. These wonderful novelists were likely Christians too.
Bram Stoker vs Mary Shelly
Jane Austen... always a fan of Jane Austen..🙂
Thank you so much for this video. I enjoyed it so much. Everyone was wonderful and I am glad that it was Kate Mosse who spoke up for Emily. "Wuthering Heights" is my favorite novel. I love the passion.
The splendour of english literature is its luxury of formidable writers whom became custodians of word artistry even for literature written in other languages. what a riveting debate! Awesome.
Whom! Wrong. School ypurself.
It's been a long time since I have enjoyed an intellectual debate this much. I am motivated to read the works all over again with a new point of view . Thank you very much for this enlightening event
I like Wuthering Heights, but I prefer Austen's novels. She is my favourite author.
Mine too, since my teens. I have read, and to a degree enjoyed, Wuthering Heights once, but I feel no desire to reread it. Jane Austen’s books I have read very many times over my long life, especially Pride & Prejudice, Persuasion and Emma. I think she was a genius, nothing less.
This turned out just as it should I think. But it compares several novels of Austen's to just one of Bronte's. Readers generally will love both. I immerse myself in Austen but I have been known to tout Jane Eyre as the most beautiful prose I've ever read. It feels like comparing apples to oranges to me. I derive familiarity and comfort and always a surprise or two rereading Jane Austen and when I am feeling like my emotions need some adventure I will read Wuthering Heights for the sheer supernatural. The Brontes had a lot of spirituality and magic or mysticism in their love affairs. I believe Anne and Capt Wentworth had the same intensity of spirit, it is just that Austen chose to focus on feelings rather than senses. I have to side with Austen, as it is just who I am however this in no way needs to negate the brilliance of Wuthering Heights and indeed Jane Eyre, (by Charlotte Bronte) both the closest reading has come to listening to music for me. Just my opinions. Brilliant acting as well in this. Well done.
Thank you for the compliment! There is no friend more unchanging and loyal than a good book.
Why though? Why compare the two? Totally different . I am totally a Bronte girl though,through and through xx
I have never read Wuthering Heights, but now with I must read it!!! This was wonderful!
see but I read Wuthering Heights and while the emotions are a whirlwind of melodrama, I can't really understand any of the characters (especially their accented dialogue) or what drives them (they're all crazy). Cathy and Heathcliff were both kinda awful people??? But Jane's characters and stories transcend time... there are still hard times in Jane Austen, but it's often more polished. Jane Austen supplies plenty of social commentary, but without submitting to violent outbursts of passion. It's not fair to say Austen wrote romance novels and pretend Wuthering Heights isn't centered on a love story (which is actually a very toxic relationship unlike the healthy ones Jane writes for her heroines).
But don't get me wrong, a Bronte wrote my favorite book... but it was Charlotte's Jane Eyre. NOT the weird and turbulent Wuthering Heights. But I still love Austen best as an overall authoress... Actually this should be Jane vs. Charlotte since Emily was a much better poet.
i think it’s not fair to tear jane down the way kate does for writing stories within the confines of the world that she lived in. women and men were separate in her novels because that’s how they were in the world. wuthering heights does appeal to me greatly but the attacks on jane just show a complete lack of understanding of the regency era and subtle emotion. why would the characters be yelling and screaming in the regency era? emotions were forced to be diluted. but i think that’s a powerful thing in it’s own right to feel something as strongly as a heathcliff or cathy but be forced to shove it down while your throat kills you because you feel like you’re about to cry. plus even with all of jane austen’s regency culture, the meaning and the emotion cuts through. when i read the end of pride and prejudice where mr.darcy and elizabeth are saying “how did you feel when this happened? did you know about this? oh you must’ve been so mad when i said this!” (paraphrasing clearly lol) i was blown away how much it felt like the beginning of my relationship with my boyfriend like i honestly felt so transported back to all the moments of knowing we liked each other and reminiscing and everything. also the point about jane austen’s works being to be rewritten and recycled and people wanting to put their own spin on it and how supposedly that can’t be done and wouldn’t be done with wuthering heights. as an example death comes to pemberly to me is just like “imagine if a jane austen novel was a [another genre]” and of course you could do that to wuthering heights! i could turn it into a comedy or a classic romance or anything! that doesn’t mean it would be as good as it is already but you could definitely change it and i don’t think curiosity about changing it means that the book as it is isn’t good already i think it just means you love the book and want to explore the universe even more and in different ways. after all, they always do it because they’re a fan to start with. random side note: wow that mark twain quote… while everyone was laughing i was just thinking “oh my gosh isn’t this like horrifying and actually a bit sexist?” hahah. also i’m telling you right now i did not proofread this i just can’t. i just woke up. so if i wrote something wrong you can have this apology: I AM SORRY
Sam West is absolutely wonderful in his scene as Mr. Elton! He was an extremely effective Mr. Elliot in that Persuasion adaptation , and I wished he had had more to do. I understand he's playing Siegfried in a radio adaptation of All Creatures Great and Small--I can just hear him!
Not a fair comparison as Emily Brontë only produced one novel whereas Jane Austen produced many and they wrote in different genres.
I enjoyed most of his presentation, it's simply more rational and supported better by evidence, but if I were him, I'd have felt a little bad, because he made 'everyone' think, and gave the lady lots of fuel, to keep categorizing Austin as simply a light comedic novelist about courtship & marriage. I find it absurd really, to compare a Classical novelist versus a Romantic one, speaking of stylistic styles. Austin may be placed in the Romantic era, but she was not a Romantic author, she was mostly a pragmatic author. "Wuthering Heights" is an over the top dramatic amateur novel! It displays talent, but only people who love soap operas can really admire the piece as a whole ... Austin is about so much more!! It's about family & human relations, sisterly relations, about integrity & ethics, it's about social classes etc. Austin was an inconspicuous philosopher. Even Emma, feels deeply when she realizes she played with Henrietta's feelings or gets admonished for humiliating Miss Bates; Elinor's sort of 'selfish' moment, deep fear of being left alone when Maryanne almost dies; Fanny's extreme poverty, shyness, resistance to marry for material comfort to the point of making her almost an anti-heroine; most women are strong intellectual women who were not allowed to be so; most men, even good ones, falling far below in integrity, judgement, or passion; these are character development. Maryanne & Lydia definitely not polite girls who controls their emotions. Austin's is a perfect description of an era without being so descriptive in style, the restrictions & restrains, the necessary self-control, the lack of control and propriety in others, the fate of women having to be married to indolent Mr Hurst, or a rake like Wickham, Crawford, or Willoughby, or a weak ridiculous man like Mr Collins or to be married to a mostly shallow self-centered woman like Mrs Bennet ... It's about relationships btn. fathers & daughters, spouses, siblings, manners; the misery the Bennets undergo because of Lydia's inconsequence; friendship; Darcy's loyalty to Bingley & to Elizabeth later on; congeniality, personalities. They're not just comedies! They're incredibly sophisticated novels which point to the ironies of life w. wit which is far more sophisticated than melodramatic outbursts. I haven't seen one WH version which is simply not overdone, Heathcliff is overbearing; nothing explains all the irrationality of the novel. Charlotte totally also blows her sister to smithereens w. Jane Eyre, a far more sophisticated novel as well, totally inspired in Austin's social analysis, except that she includes elements of mysticism, one has to buy into some things to believe Jane Eyre; still a far more complex and better novel than WH!
I agree. I cannot believe that people can just overlook something as important as the masterfully complex characterisation we seen in Austen's novels. I love a lot about Wuthering Heights but it's nowhere near as sophisticated.
I am very sorry, but Kate Mosse is very disingenuous in her argument. She picked the most romantic fragments of the novel to be read, and back-pedalled for the next 15 minutes claiming the book is "not about love nor romance, and these fragments show it". Oh, come on: wasn't there any better fragment displaying just that?
The relationship between Mr and Mrs Bennett reminds me so much of the relationship between my grandparents