Many critics of Emily Brontë’s novel Wuthering Heights see its second part as a counter-point that comments on, if it does not reverse, the first part, where a romantic reading receives more confirmation. Many pundits of the masterpiece written by EB see in her novel - the second part specifically - as a counterpoint to the first part. In other words, the second part is almost the opposite of the first part.
Seeing the two parts as a whole is encouraged by the novel’s sophisticated structure, revealed in its complex use of narrators and time shifts. So we do have two parts almost in opposite directions. But, the novel has to it a very clever structure that suggests to us to consider the same move as a whole. As a unicum body and NOT two different parts
Granted that the presence of these elements need not argue for an authorial awareness of novelistic construction comparable to that of Henry James, their presence does encourage attempts to unify the novel’s heterogeneous parts.
This is a difficult sentence in its meaning: actually, it means: even though we do have ON ONE HAND the fact that the novel could be considered divided into two parts , and ON THE OTHER HAND that we should for the good consider the same novel as a whole WE DO KNOW FOR SURE that all these elements or characteristics of the same novel are present because the author EB knows how to write a novel itself
"
authorial awareness of novelistic construction" means who writes a book in this case EB is perfectly aware of how to write it and turns out the novel is similar to that of James
However, any interpretation that seeks to unify all of the novel’s diverse elements is bound to be somewhat unconvincing.However, all we said above is somehow inconsistent. We do have difficulty framing the novel itself and its structure
This is not because such an interpretation necessarily stiffens into a thesis (although rigidity in any interpretation of this or of any novel is always a danger), but because Wuthering Heights has recalcitrant elements of undeniable power that, ultimately, resist inclusion in an all-encompassing interpretation. In this respect, Wuthering Heights shares a feature of Hamlet.WHY, WHY what we analyze about the novel, in the end, is inconsistent? why we do have difficulties understanding its structure?
The reason is NOT that we have a rigid, inflexible interpretation of it - and by the way, any rigid understanding or approach, in general, is almost always detrimental to understanding anything we are analyzing - BUT the real reason WHY we have a difficult to put the novel in a specific and consistent frame is because
"
Wuthering Heights has recalcitrant elements of undeniable power that, ultimately, resist inclusion in an all-encompassing interpretation. In this respect, Wuthering Heights shares a feature of Hamlet."
WH has a strong and firm opposition or uncooperative attitude towards the novel itself. In other words, he DOES NOT have a flexible approach to it. Doing so, this UNflexible analysis of the novel, is the same thing he did with Hamlet: a rigid approach to the analysis of the novel.
I hope now is more clear the big picture with the explanation of the entire passage
Many critics of Emily Brontë's novel Wuthering Heights
_________________
