Wuthering Heights Applied

The moors are one symbol of nature. I think it is interesting how as young children, both Heathcliffe and Catherine love playing in the moors. Heathcliffe I don't think ever looses that desire to be in the moors. When Heathcliffe has young Catherine meat, Linton, they meet on the moors. He goes on walks away from society. I think this is important, because Heathcliffe becomes the "nature" character. He is also the most evil character. So if he is the nature character in Bronte's mind, then she may think that nature is evil. She then would think that Heathcliffe's rival, Edgar Linton who stays on his property more, and remains in the confines of society symbolizes humanity as a whole. I don't think Bronte is completely one sided on the issue. She doesn't seem to love Edgar or Heathcliffe much. Catherine who is struggling between these two chooses society and humanity if you will, but she is not completely happy (although  I think there are other forces at play.) She seems to desire to return to nature her whole life after marrying Edgar. We do not know what would have happened, if she married Heathcliffe, but I don't think most readers believe it would have worked out.

I think Bronte believes in some balance between nature and society. Edgars seems with much passion or guts at times. Perhaps combining the passion of Heathcliffe with the logic and morals of Edgar brings a good balance. I don't know. I think finding a balance between nature and society/humanity is a hard thing to do. If one is not superior, finding a balance is hard. I don't see a simple way to argue in the middle, though I would love to here that argument.If Heathcliffe's raw passion is good, I think it inherently comes with some of the negative aspects of Heathcliffe.  And if Edgar like civility is good, then I think you lose some of the raw passion. Overall, right now I think there has to be one answer to this. I am leaning towards saying humanity, or at least the ideals of humanity and society, are superior.

Good Quotes "I wish I were out of doors--I wish I were a girl again, half savage and hardy, and free... and laughing at injuries, not maddening under them! Why am I so changed? why does my blood rush into a hell of tumult at a few words? I'm sure I should be myself were I once among the heather on those hills..." (12.46)

Oedipus Rex Applied

I think Oedipus Rex applies to my big question because fate could easily be viewed as nature, or what should happen (though the Greek Gods do complicate this fact.) Beyond this fact, Oedipus has wounded feet, becomes blind, and has he genetics of his parents. So one view of this novel could be that fate wins. It is more powerful than the human trying to escape it's grasp. Fate is all powerful in the story (or at least to the point that Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother.) He can do nothing to go against his nature. Another view would be that his parents trying to survive (survival of the fittest) do all  that they can to hinder him from succeeding. They wound his feet and send him off to be killed. Here another two opinions could separate. Some could feel that Oedipus is the fittest where as others could feel his parents are. Nonetheless, he survives when in nature he should not do so. This could be as Sophocles arguing that he overcomes nature which would imply that he may be better than nature. I don't love this book for the question but I don't think it gives a definitive side to my quesiton.