"Sufis speak of the unregenerate as blind to true reality; but also of themselves as blind to things which are important to the unregenerate. Like the bat, the Sufi is asleep to "things of the day”— the familiar struggle for existence which the ordinary man finds all-important—and vigilant while others are asleep. In other words, he keeps awake the spiritual attention dormant in others. That "mankind sleeps in a nightmare of unfulfillment” is a commonplace of Sufi literature." -Robert Graves

To love the Muse, not only for her inherent beauty but especially for her effect upon him, continuously regenerating his will to live and create, is the Master’s ultimate and sufficient reward. Permission to love may not always equate with an appropriate motive to love, but as the great Romantic painters and writers taught us, a romance is not the perfectly balanced and therapeutically healthy relationship so often depicted in modern, conscientious and liberal TikTok trends. It represents the gamut of love and devotion which mortals express and through which they live and find meaning; It is EROS, PHILIA, and AGAPE, all at once and in sweeping episodic movements. Affection, lust, disdain, guilt, grief, hate, envy, possessiveness, jealousy, and empathy are all weather patterns in the ecosphere of Love.

Monodimensionalizing or monolith-izing any concept, person, feeling, or group is intrinsically problematic and philosophically lazy. Love, such as we experience it, is complicated and messy, as much as it is fulfilling and magnificent. One misguided author wrote that “Wuthering Heights isn't romantic; it's a multi-faceted, Gothic examination of gender inequality, classism, the madness generated from both…” Yep…that’s Romance. Awkward. Now, I agree, partially, with the author (Christopher Shultz) when he states that the relationship between Heathcliff and Catherine probably shouldn’t constitute a “goal” for anyone seeking a well-balanced and healthy partnership, but he goes on to cite a feminist author, whose view on the topic is framed through the lens of her impressionable youth, and I have a problem with this.

Part of Shultz’s thesis is that movies and the kaleidoscope of pop-culture corrupted public perception of the core concepts and message of Wuthering Heights, and that we should be more wary of these archetypes, especially in men, than we are. Perhaps the latter admonition should be taken at face value, but this doesn’t mean that we’ve fundamentally misunderstood (R)omance as a society, in fine or at large. In fact, the author he cites, Samantha Ellis, read the fucking book, and still came away with what Shultz might describes as an unhealthy fixation with “bad boys” and “tenebrous” lovers. This kind of self-loathing and retroactive emotional analysis, scaled up to cultural diagnosis is a bit…contrived. I really hate it.

The fundamental conceit of Shultz’ thesis here is that people misunderstand what Romance is, and, paradoxically, quintessential Romance stories are to blame. “If you think, after all this, there is any redemption for Heathcliff in the novel, you are sadly mistaken.” Really? “Pretty romantic, right? Obviously not, and yet for many, this is indeed one of “the greatest love stories” of their time, and maybe all time. How is that possible, given the bald monstrousness displayed by Heathcliff?” I mean, we’re making a lot of sociology-major mistakes and assumptions here, man.

I wrote a paper in college about the nature of modern research in the age of the internet and the primary cognitive motives of “truth seeking” behaviors. My professor stopped me, mid-read, and said that I had presumed that most people research, or more banally, “Google” in order to discover the truth about a topic or claim. In reality, he said, there is no evidence that, without training, the average person poses queries or conducts what passes for research, for the express purpose of becoming better informed about the objective facts. Most people Google stuff because they are seeking relief from the discomfort of not knowing. All they want is escape from the psychic tension produced by the limbic system, fed through the ego, which makes them feel deeply anxious about ignorance. Partially a product of its own cognitive feedback loop, the impulse to alleviate this tension has been magnified by devices that constantly feed us information, true or not, curated by servitors and incentivized by inhuman tech bros.

Anyway, my professor was right. The way this connects to Wuthering Heights and Shultz misanalysis, is that people aren’t necessarily fucking interested in the cleanest, safest and most emotionally sensitive option; and saying that the reading public have essentially misunderstood Brontë and, with childish abandon, picked what’s not good for us, is presumptuous and boring. Remember when Jamie Oliver liquified chicken in front of children to make chicken nuggets, hoping they would understand the horror of mass-produced, ultra-processed food, and pick the “healthier” option? Yeah, that didn’t go well… But, are you going to sit there and say there’s something wrong with those kids, or the culture that engineered the circumstances which produced their tastes? You could make the case, sure. But I submit that its a bit snobbish to tell people the “just don’t get it…” and that they shouldn’t admire these characters or plots.

“No, Frankenstein IS the monster!” That’s almost become its own literary Bell curve. Arguing about whether Robert Frost was advocating for the path less traveled by or not is so fucking trite and boring I can’t actually keep writing about it; did you enjoy reading it, tho? Wuthering Heights IS one of the greatest Romance novels ever written, it’s just that Shultz and about every other pseudo-intellectual haven’t the foggiest idea what Romance is/was and how we live our messy little lives. It isn’t the most admirable circumstance, or the most honorable person; it doesn’t reflect the modern oh-so-sterile and updated, clinically appropriate, informed and trauma conscious relationship. It’s Madness.