What do you think?
Rate this book
The Brontesaurus: An A–Z of Charlotte, Emily and Anne Brontë
Did Charlotte Brontë take opium? Did the Reverend Brontë carry a loaded pistol? What, precisely, does ‘wuthering’ mean?
Distinguished literary critic John Sutherland takes an idiosyncratic look at the world of the Brontës, from the bumps on Charlotte’s head to the nefarious origins of Mr Rochester’s fortune, by way of astral telephony, letter-writing dogs, an exploding peat bog, and much, much more.
Also features ‘Jane Eyre abbreviated’ by John Crace, author of the Guardian’s ‘Digested Reads’ column – read Charlotte Brontë’s masterpiece in five minutes!
Distinguished literary critic John Sutherland takes an idiosyncratic look at the world of the Brontës, from the bumps on Charlotte’s head to the nefarious origins of Mr Rochester’s fortune, by way of astral telephony, letter-writing dogs, an exploding peat bog, and much, much more.
Also features ‘Jane Eyre abbreviated’ by John Crace, author of the Guardian’s ‘Digested Reads’ column – read Charlotte Brontë’s masterpiece in five minutes!
176 pages, Hardcover
Published November 3, 2016
11 people are currently reading
194 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
January 8, 2018
John Sutherland has written a slew of books full of literary trivia and enduring mysteries from classic literature. This book combines both of his pet subjects, asking questions such as whether Mr. Rochester killed Bertha Mason (he reckons so) and whether Branwell and Emily might have committed suicide by opium and self-starvation, respectively (again, he thinks the odds are good). The ins and outs of Wuthering Heights, Branwell’s relationship with Mrs. Robinson, and Charlotte’s romantic entanglements are other major topics that get multiple mini-essays. Sutherland also engages with the Brontës’ legacy and the chintzy nature of many of the establishments in present-day Haworth.
A couple of the best facts I picked up: “Brocklehurst” means a wood that smells like farts (can this be true?), and Charlotte was more of a cat person than her sisters. At times the book does seem a little prurient, as when the author feels the need to spell out that Charlotte “was the only [Brontë] daughter to experience sexual intercourse. It killed her.” (She was pregnant at the time of her death and was rumored to have suffered from hyperemesis gravidarum, the extreme form of morning sickness.) It’s an odd way of putting things, and only reinforces the Victorian stereotype of perpetual virginity.
The text is also fairly poorly edited, the worst examples being “Thornton Hall” [p. 54] and (twice) “Susan Gerber” instead of Gubar [pp. ix, 42]. (Both are spelled correctly on other occasions, though.) Not essential reading, but pleasant fluff for lovers of Victoriana. Sutherland raises more questions than he answers, concluding that “we’ll never know and always wonder. The usual situation with the Brontës.”
I won a copy in a Twitter giveaway.
A couple of the best facts I picked up: “Brocklehurst” means a wood that smells like farts (can this be true?), and Charlotte was more of a cat person than her sisters. At times the book does seem a little prurient, as when the author feels the need to spell out that Charlotte “was the only [Brontë] daughter to experience sexual intercourse. It killed her.” (She was pregnant at the time of her death and was rumored to have suffered from hyperemesis gravidarum, the extreme form of morning sickness.) It’s an odd way of putting things, and only reinforces the Victorian stereotype of perpetual virginity.
The text is also fairly poorly edited, the worst examples being “Thornton Hall” [p. 54] and (twice) “Susan Gerber” instead of Gubar [pp. ix, 42]. (Both are spelled correctly on other occasions, though.) Not essential reading, but pleasant fluff for lovers of Victoriana. Sutherland raises more questions than he answers, concluding that “we’ll never know and always wonder. The usual situation with the Brontës.”
I won a copy in a Twitter giveaway.
January 28, 2020
This is almost entirely old news to seasoned Brontë fanatics - although if you truffle hard enough, you might come across one or two mildly interesting tidbits amid the otherwise sanctimonious and mildly sexist drivel.
The Brontësaurus (so-called, despite Sutherland omitting several letters of the alphabet) seems awkwardly poised somewhere between fanciful speculation and specious declaratives. Sutherland frequently assures the reader that “it is clear that” or “it is obvious that", to remind us that despite his specious arguments, his dissection of the Brontë ouevre is entirely correct. This sentiment is, however, somewhat undermined by the myriad basic editorial errors and inaccurate facts that riddle the text. For example: Anne’s dog, Flossy, changes sex halfway through a paragraph. Thornfield Hall is mistaken for Thornton Hall, and Jane’s wedding dress is apparently ripped in two when it was actually her wedding veil. Sutherland also confidently asserts that 1822 was “twenty years before the main action of Wuthering Heights”, despite his comprehensive timeline provided in a previous chapter and the date (1801) literally being supplied in the first sentence of Emily’s novel. Similarly, the worlds of Angria and Gondal are confused: Sutherland concludes that Gondal is concerned with male heroism, although even a skim read of the juvenilia will confirm that it's Angria that was populated by Napoleons, Wellingtons and embryonic Rochesters. Gondal was in fact ruled exclusively by women.
Anne and Branwell are painfully neglected in favour of strained hypotheses concerning Charlotte and Emily - for example, the assertion that Emily Brontë had a “quasi-sexual” relationship with her dogs. Branwell makes a brief guest appearance; his bracketed name on the cover perpetuates the tone of the book. Anne is given only two dedicated entries and is otherwise added as an afterthought - what’s changed, eh? Although she does get her fair share of mistakes, too. Apparently Anne’s choice of Wildfell is reminiscent of the “wild fell(ow)”, Arthur Huntington. Ellen Nussey, Charlotte’s lifelong BFF, is replaced by “a servant” on Anne’s final journey to Scarborough, and Mrs Wooler, Anne and Charlotte’s old headmistress, becomes an “unnamed mourner” at the funeral. Sutherland also declares the ending of Agnes Grey “opaque”, despite the fact that it was praised extensively for its neatness, and critic George Moore hailed it as “the perfect novel”. Oh dear, Sutherland, looks like you don’t know your critics as well as you say you do.
The writing is needlessly convoluted and self-righteous. There’s a generous helping of name-dropping: apparently, Sutherland frequently texts Polly Samson and I genuinely think he has a crush on Juliet Barker. The tone hovers somewhere between supercilious jargon and wince-inducing attempts at humour: Grace Poole is “pissed out of her mind” and the excess of parentheses will make you cringe - “(notably the Old Cock - interesting name)”. Hohoho.
I’ve read far, far better. Take this with a pinch of salt. Or opium.
The Brontësaurus (so-called, despite Sutherland omitting several letters of the alphabet) seems awkwardly poised somewhere between fanciful speculation and specious declaratives. Sutherland frequently assures the reader that “it is clear that” or “it is obvious that", to remind us that despite his specious arguments, his dissection of the Brontë ouevre is entirely correct. This sentiment is, however, somewhat undermined by the myriad basic editorial errors and inaccurate facts that riddle the text. For example: Anne’s dog, Flossy, changes sex halfway through a paragraph. Thornfield Hall is mistaken for Thornton Hall, and Jane’s wedding dress is apparently ripped in two when it was actually her wedding veil. Sutherland also confidently asserts that 1822 was “twenty years before the main action of Wuthering Heights”, despite his comprehensive timeline provided in a previous chapter and the date (1801) literally being supplied in the first sentence of Emily’s novel. Similarly, the worlds of Angria and Gondal are confused: Sutherland concludes that Gondal is concerned with male heroism, although even a skim read of the juvenilia will confirm that it's Angria that was populated by Napoleons, Wellingtons and embryonic Rochesters. Gondal was in fact ruled exclusively by women.
Anne and Branwell are painfully neglected in favour of strained hypotheses concerning Charlotte and Emily - for example, the assertion that Emily Brontë had a “quasi-sexual” relationship with her dogs. Branwell makes a brief guest appearance; his bracketed name on the cover perpetuates the tone of the book. Anne is given only two dedicated entries and is otherwise added as an afterthought - what’s changed, eh? Although she does get her fair share of mistakes, too. Apparently Anne’s choice of Wildfell is reminiscent of the “wild fell(ow)”, Arthur Huntington. Ellen Nussey, Charlotte’s lifelong BFF, is replaced by “a servant” on Anne’s final journey to Scarborough, and Mrs Wooler, Anne and Charlotte’s old headmistress, becomes an “unnamed mourner” at the funeral. Sutherland also declares the ending of Agnes Grey “opaque”, despite the fact that it was praised extensively for its neatness, and critic George Moore hailed it as “the perfect novel”. Oh dear, Sutherland, looks like you don’t know your critics as well as you say you do.
The writing is needlessly convoluted and self-righteous. There’s a generous helping of name-dropping: apparently, Sutherland frequently texts Polly Samson and I genuinely think he has a crush on Juliet Barker. The tone hovers somewhere between supercilious jargon and wince-inducing attempts at humour: Grace Poole is “pissed out of her mind” and the excess of parentheses will make you cringe - “(notably the Old Cock - interesting name)”. Hohoho.
I’ve read far, far better. Take this with a pinch of salt. Or opium.
January 11, 2021
Brzo se čita i saznala sam dosta zanimljivih činjenica, ali zameram što je autor na momente previše subjektivan i mnogo pozajmljuje od drugih (podjednako subjektivnih). Takođe se mnogo raspisao o zubima sestara Bronte. Svi izvori se trude da pronađu nešto više, da dodaju na misterioznosti i senzacionalizmu i trude se da nametnu svoje razmišljanje koje je jedino ispravno. Ipak, bilo je zabavno pročitati ovako nešto. Autor je bar dovoljno ciničan, voli da raskrinkava (Vesna Rivas piće šalje mu), nije mu ni humor loš, ali neću zalaziti u njegovo poznavanje feminizma. Šarlot je ovde najviše zastupljena, ni ne čudi, ipak se o njoj najviše zna.
Na kraju knjige se nalazi 'Jane Eyre abbreviated' što me je najviše i zabavilo - pisac Guardian-a John Crace na 6 stranica daje retelling. Evo delić:
‘But sir, I am just a proto-feminist who likes to speak her mind,’ I replied.
"Reader, forgive me. I know I am meant to be a feminist role model and that I ought to have told him to get stuffed if he thought I was going to get married to someone who could play such abusive mind games. But reader, I am plain and I was unlikely to get a better offer. Besides, I did really fancy him and it wasn’t his fault that he had had such a tortured life and he could be quite nice when he tried."
Na kraju knjige se nalazi 'Jane Eyre abbreviated' što me je najviše i zabavilo - pisac Guardian-a John Crace na 6 stranica daje retelling. Evo delić:
‘But sir, I am just a proto-feminist who likes to speak her mind,’ I replied.
"Reader, forgive me. I know I am meant to be a feminist role model and that I ought to have told him to get stuffed if he thought I was going to get married to someone who could play such abusive mind games. But reader, I am plain and I was unlikely to get a better offer. Besides, I did really fancy him and it wasn’t his fault that he had had such a tortured life and he could be quite nice when he tried."
February 16, 2017
The title of this book indicates that it isn't intended to be taken wholly seriously, and indeed half of it reads like the author's own opinion, and the other half semi-factual. I'm glad that it isn't a serious academic proposal because wow I would dearly love to tear it to shreds, but it bothers me that this will have an audience academics don't have, and as a result of reading this, there will be people who leave this book actually, probably, more poorly-informed than they came to it.
Effusively sexist, self-assured and with a strong undercurrent of resistance to 'modern' revisionist critical thought, John Sutherland (why oh why did I not remember who this guy was until I started reading?!) pedals you a lot of debunked myths about the Bronte's, and does an awful lot of pondering at them, without providing much valuable insight into them or their work at all. And to a larger extent, does an awful lot to perpetuate some incredibly negative -- and factually wrong -- ideas about them and their work.
Frivolous stuff like this is fun, on a level, but in the long-term, more damaging than anything else. If you want a decent, informative, respectful, carefully written, feminist biography of the Bronte's: Claire Harman is your gal. Forget this guy.
Effusively sexist, self-assured and with a strong undercurrent of resistance to 'modern' revisionist critical thought, John Sutherland (why oh why did I not remember who this guy was until I started reading?!) pedals you a lot of debunked myths about the Bronte's, and does an awful lot of pondering at them, without providing much valuable insight into them or their work at all. And to a larger extent, does an awful lot to perpetuate some incredibly negative -- and factually wrong -- ideas about them and their work.
Frivolous stuff like this is fun, on a level, but in the long-term, more damaging than anything else. If you want a decent, informative, respectful, carefully written, feminist biography of the Bronte's: Claire Harman is your gal. Forget this guy.
November 1, 2019
Literary critic Sutherland brings a different kind of biography of the Bronte family by presenting various aspects in an A-Z format. It's easy to read, well set out and thoroughly interesting. I don't agree with all his points of view but this didn't make me dislike the book at all.
June 14, 2018
For my full review: https://girlwithherheadinabook.co.uk/...
Writer and academic John Sutherland is well-known in literary geek circles for his puzzles on conundrums within classic literature such as Can Jane Eyre Be Happy? and Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? Here he returns to the stage for a Brontë-focused book, running down an A to Z from Anne's last journey and Attic matters right through to Wuthering and Windows. I admit I was surprised that Zamorna didn't make it for the final entry. Sutherland has an indisputable level of enthusiasm for the subject, kicking off with a passionate preface describing how Wuthering Heights sparked his own Brontëphilia. What makes The Brontësaurus so much fun is that not only does Sutherland know his stuff, but he's not afraid to have fun as he goes through his paces.
Divided into mini-chapters, the book is a collection of Sutherland's Brontëish musings and while sorted alphabetically, in reality we are travelling wherever his interest takes us. A few of his pet theories make a reappearance from previous books (E.g. Is Heathcliff a Murderer? - Sutherland's answer is yes: it was clearly Heathcliff what done in Hindley) and while he does not repeat his entire thesis on why Jane will not be happy with Rochester (it's complicated, but basically Rochester was trying to court Miss Blanche Ingram and then Mrs Fairfax probably intervened), Sutherland does go over his belief that Mr R killed his first wife.
My own favourite Sutherland puzzle however did not get a mention at all - in Can Jane Eyre Be Happy? Sutherland puts forward the idea that Cathy came back to haunt Heathcliff when she did because he had mentioned to Nelly a plan to visit his lawyer to change his will. Heathcliff's final act of planned revenge would be to ensure that neither young Catherine or Hareton inherit. Older Cathy had, Sutherland points out, three roles in Wuthering Heights; she had been Heathcliff's lover, Edgar's wife and Catherine's mother and Sutherland argues that it is in this final role that she returns to end Heathcliff's life before he can ruin her daughter's future. The image of the two lovers reunited with Cathy's retribution complete and Heathcliff defeated is glorious - it made me see the book in an entirely new light.
The Brontësaurus is about much more than Sutherland's thoughts on contentious moments in classic literature. He ponders on the well-known Brontë pets Flossy and Keeper, the damning letters Charlotte sent to Monsieur Heger, considers Arthur Bell Nicholls is a not too forgiving light. He analyses the notorious Pillar which blocked out Branwell, ponders Branwell's involvement with Mrs Robinson and even posits quite convincingly that Branwell committed suicide rather than dying of tuberculosis. It is an odd slightly lurid moment though when Sutherland comments that 'Charlotte's sisters had gone to their graves young virgins. She, now a middle-aged woman of 37, was the only daughter to experience sexual intercourse. It killed her'. This of course refers to Charlotte's death as a result of hyperemesis gravidarum but all the same, it indicates a rather Victorian attitude towards chastity.
I noticed though that Sutherland takes quite a Jane Eyre-centric approach, even finishing the book with John Crace's Jane Eyre: abbreviated as an appendix. With chapters on attics, bigamy, Creoles, Grace and more, Charlotte's first-published novel gets by far the most screen-time out of all the sisters' works. I was particularly caught though by Sutherland's observation on all of the feminist readings which perceive Bertha Mason as representing Jane's repressed self, or 'the inner rebellion of Victorian womanhood'. He points out rather astutely that while people remember the opening line about there being no possibility of a walk and that reader, Jane married him, few recall the closing words 'Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus!' A truly revisionist view on Jane Eyre might note that it was a novel written by a woman of strong religious feeling intending with 'an overt Christian motive'. I remember being surprised on my own first reading of Jane Eyre that the finale seemed more about acknowledging the holy sacrifice of St John Rivers rather than Jane and Rochester's happiness together - Sutherland really does have a point.
Brontësaurus is a light-hearted and fun look at one of literature's most famous families, but there are moments when it does feel a little hurried. It does seem that a few steps around proof-reading were missed, with authors' names mis-spelled in a few places and a reference made to Emily Brontë telling her students in Brussels that she cared more for the school dog than any of them when she actually did that at Law Hill. And also, Charlotte and Anne went to Scarborough with Ellen Nussey, not a servant. While these errors are minor, they could have been caught fairly easily. When I compared Brontësaurus to John Mullan's What Matters in Jane Austen? I can see that the latter book was written with a great deal more thought and consideration. One has the vague feeling with Brontësaurus that Sutherland is recycling his greatest hits. It's not that it is not enjoyable, but it is a prettier and more accessible update of material from the 1990s.
All that being said, Sutherland's book is a welcome ray of light and good humour given how bleak so much of the reading around the Brontës can be. He takes a tongue-in-cheek tone of deference towards 'that most level-headed of biographers' Juliet Barker and acknowledges how difficult it is to really know anything for certain when it comes to the Brontës. While other writers huff and puff in attempting to challenge received wisdom about the family, Sutherland seemingly saunters in and manages with a few words what it takes others paragraphs to achieve. He makes writing interesting literary criticism seem effortless - high praise indeed. Brontëphiles are guaranteed to find something to appreciate and indeed, more surprisingly, to uncover something that they had never considered before.
Writer and academic John Sutherland is well-known in literary geek circles for his puzzles on conundrums within classic literature such as Can Jane Eyre Be Happy? and Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? Here he returns to the stage for a Brontë-focused book, running down an A to Z from Anne's last journey and Attic matters right through to Wuthering and Windows. I admit I was surprised that Zamorna didn't make it for the final entry. Sutherland has an indisputable level of enthusiasm for the subject, kicking off with a passionate preface describing how Wuthering Heights sparked his own Brontëphilia. What makes The Brontësaurus so much fun is that not only does Sutherland know his stuff, but he's not afraid to have fun as he goes through his paces.
Divided into mini-chapters, the book is a collection of Sutherland's Brontëish musings and while sorted alphabetically, in reality we are travelling wherever his interest takes us. A few of his pet theories make a reappearance from previous books (E.g. Is Heathcliff a Murderer? - Sutherland's answer is yes: it was clearly Heathcliff what done in Hindley) and while he does not repeat his entire thesis on why Jane will not be happy with Rochester (it's complicated, but basically Rochester was trying to court Miss Blanche Ingram and then Mrs Fairfax probably intervened), Sutherland does go over his belief that Mr R killed his first wife.
My own favourite Sutherland puzzle however did not get a mention at all - in Can Jane Eyre Be Happy? Sutherland puts forward the idea that Cathy came back to haunt Heathcliff when she did because he had mentioned to Nelly a plan to visit his lawyer to change his will. Heathcliff's final act of planned revenge would be to ensure that neither young Catherine or Hareton inherit. Older Cathy had, Sutherland points out, three roles in Wuthering Heights; she had been Heathcliff's lover, Edgar's wife and Catherine's mother and Sutherland argues that it is in this final role that she returns to end Heathcliff's life before he can ruin her daughter's future. The image of the two lovers reunited with Cathy's retribution complete and Heathcliff defeated is glorious - it made me see the book in an entirely new light.
The Brontësaurus is about much more than Sutherland's thoughts on contentious moments in classic literature. He ponders on the well-known Brontë pets Flossy and Keeper, the damning letters Charlotte sent to Monsieur Heger, considers Arthur Bell Nicholls is a not too forgiving light. He analyses the notorious Pillar which blocked out Branwell, ponders Branwell's involvement with Mrs Robinson and even posits quite convincingly that Branwell committed suicide rather than dying of tuberculosis. It is an odd slightly lurid moment though when Sutherland comments that 'Charlotte's sisters had gone to their graves young virgins. She, now a middle-aged woman of 37, was the only daughter to experience sexual intercourse. It killed her'. This of course refers to Charlotte's death as a result of hyperemesis gravidarum but all the same, it indicates a rather Victorian attitude towards chastity.
I noticed though that Sutherland takes quite a Jane Eyre-centric approach, even finishing the book with John Crace's Jane Eyre: abbreviated as an appendix. With chapters on attics, bigamy, Creoles, Grace and more, Charlotte's first-published novel gets by far the most screen-time out of all the sisters' works. I was particularly caught though by Sutherland's observation on all of the feminist readings which perceive Bertha Mason as representing Jane's repressed self, or 'the inner rebellion of Victorian womanhood'. He points out rather astutely that while people remember the opening line about there being no possibility of a walk and that reader, Jane married him, few recall the closing words 'Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus!' A truly revisionist view on Jane Eyre might note that it was a novel written by a woman of strong religious feeling intending with 'an overt Christian motive'. I remember being surprised on my own first reading of Jane Eyre that the finale seemed more about acknowledging the holy sacrifice of St John Rivers rather than Jane and Rochester's happiness together - Sutherland really does have a point.
Brontësaurus is a light-hearted and fun look at one of literature's most famous families, but there are moments when it does feel a little hurried. It does seem that a few steps around proof-reading were missed, with authors' names mis-spelled in a few places and a reference made to Emily Brontë telling her students in Brussels that she cared more for the school dog than any of them when she actually did that at Law Hill. And also, Charlotte and Anne went to Scarborough with Ellen Nussey, not a servant. While these errors are minor, they could have been caught fairly easily. When I compared Brontësaurus to John Mullan's What Matters in Jane Austen? I can see that the latter book was written with a great deal more thought and consideration. One has the vague feeling with Brontësaurus that Sutherland is recycling his greatest hits. It's not that it is not enjoyable, but it is a prettier and more accessible update of material from the 1990s.
All that being said, Sutherland's book is a welcome ray of light and good humour given how bleak so much of the reading around the Brontës can be. He takes a tongue-in-cheek tone of deference towards 'that most level-headed of biographers' Juliet Barker and acknowledges how difficult it is to really know anything for certain when it comes to the Brontës. While other writers huff and puff in attempting to challenge received wisdom about the family, Sutherland seemingly saunters in and manages with a few words what it takes others paragraphs to achieve. He makes writing interesting literary criticism seem effortless - high praise indeed. Brontëphiles are guaranteed to find something to appreciate and indeed, more surprisingly, to uncover something that they had never considered before.
October 13, 2017
I loved this! I only wish it had been longer. Very funny and informative, with a definite point of view, respecting yet gently mocking its fascinating subjects.
April 11, 2019
Mostly casually anti-feminist gossipy drivel where history and fiction are banded about as the same thing. The book is like reading an extremely long daily mail character assassination of Charlotte Bronte with a smidge of pity for the “poor” apparently powerless males of the Bronte family. I found it a tad offensive but mostly irritating. “Was Emily Bronte lesbian?” I genuinely could not give a ****. I’m just glad it’s over.
May 6, 2020
A fun book of little facts and interesting info on the Brontë siblings, their literary works, lives and experiences. Sutherland doesn't go deep with his analysis and writing, but that's not what this book is about or for. It's meant to be an entertaining glimpse into this world, to introduce you to the siblings' world and to perhaps give you some new things to think about when reading their works.
There were some weird errors - for example Thornfield Hall was called Thornton Hall - which made the book feel a bit unfinished and careless, but all in all I did enjoy it.
There were some weird errors - for example Thornfield Hall was called Thornton Hall - which made the book feel a bit unfinished and careless, but all in all I did enjoy it.
October 1, 2019
As someone who loves the Brontës and can’t get enough information about them, this book was a fun read! Sometimes it felt like the author wanted us to know how smart he was and it came off incredibly dry, but overall, each little section about an aspect of one of the Brontës’ lives were amazing! I learned quite a bit of new information not only about this family, but also the time period in which they lived! I highly recommend for anyone who is a fan of the Brontës.
September 12, 2025
A very funny and educational read.
May 27, 2022
For a book written about 3 women, it has a faint whiff of sexism
May 21, 2018
As guessed by the name, this is a sort of thesaurus dedicated to the Brontës. It takes certain phrases, themes and concepts from the family and their work in order to A) make sense of them or B) introduce new arguments. This was a decent read, and has planted new concepts into my mind. I'll definitely look out for some of Sutherland's arguments when re-reading the Brontë novels. Although some of his arguments I had already thought/read about before, I was introduced to a lot of new readings. I would definitely recommend this if you're interested in this deeper reading kind-of thing.
There were some issues with the text though. Firstly, at times, I felt it was a little snobbish (I think that's fair to say?). Although he allowed room for speculation and disagreement from the reader, it also felt like it was his way or no way. What he says goes, and you're wrong to disagree. I'm not sure if this was just me, or if this is a universal feeling, but it was a little discomforting and annoying at times. I want the writer to be distance from what he's saying, not forcing his points onto the reader. Additionally, he seemed to simplify a lot of complex themes and ideas found in the Brontë novels. The entries didn't have to be as short as they did, and he definitely could have expanded on some of his points. He definitely could have argued different sides of his claims, but he chose to only incorporate his own.
I also didn't like his treatment of Anne and Branwell. Firstly, why is Branwell's name in brackets? What is that supposed to mean? He isn't as serious as his sisters? Isn't worthy of being explored, but put in to pacify some readers? He is just as important as the three sisters, and deserved more than an 'Opium' entry. Ugh. Secondly, Sutherland sorely neglected Anne. Apparently, she is destined to be the forgotten one. Only two or three entries were dedicated to her, and then she disappeared. There are plenty of concepts in Anne's novels that could be explored further, but once again she is pushed to the side lines. Not cool. This should have been called The Brontësaurus: an A-Z of Charlotte and Emily (oh, and occasionally Anne and Branwell. But don't get your hopes up). Snooze.
Whereas I really liked some entries, a lot lacked worth. He, evidently, did a wealth of research, but he should have included that more. Tell me where the arguments came from, instead of just dropping them in randomly. Include a bibliography so I can check out some of your readings? Despite this rant I find myself on, Sutherland did make some interesting arguments - not only on topics I am already familiar with, but also new ones. He introduced me to quite a lot of new information! I definitely look at the texts a different way now.
I would recommend as it was insightful, but it wasn't my favourite read about the family.
There were some issues with the text though. Firstly, at times, I felt it was a little snobbish (I think that's fair to say?). Although he allowed room for speculation and disagreement from the reader, it also felt like it was his way or no way. What he says goes, and you're wrong to disagree. I'm not sure if this was just me, or if this is a universal feeling, but it was a little discomforting and annoying at times. I want the writer to be distance from what he's saying, not forcing his points onto the reader. Additionally, he seemed to simplify a lot of complex themes and ideas found in the Brontë novels. The entries didn't have to be as short as they did, and he definitely could have expanded on some of his points. He definitely could have argued different sides of his claims, but he chose to only incorporate his own.
I also didn't like his treatment of Anne and Branwell. Firstly, why is Branwell's name in brackets? What is that supposed to mean? He isn't as serious as his sisters? Isn't worthy of being explored, but put in to pacify some readers? He is just as important as the three sisters, and deserved more than an 'Opium' entry. Ugh. Secondly, Sutherland sorely neglected Anne. Apparently, she is destined to be the forgotten one. Only two or three entries were dedicated to her, and then she disappeared. There are plenty of concepts in Anne's novels that could be explored further, but once again she is pushed to the side lines. Not cool. This should have been called The Brontësaurus: an A-Z of Charlotte and Emily (oh, and occasionally Anne and Branwell. But don't get your hopes up). Snooze.
Whereas I really liked some entries, a lot lacked worth. He, evidently, did a wealth of research, but he should have included that more. Tell me where the arguments came from, instead of just dropping them in randomly. Include a bibliography so I can check out some of your readings? Despite this rant I find myself on, Sutherland did make some interesting arguments - not only on topics I am already familiar with, but also new ones. He introduced me to quite a lot of new information! I definitely look at the texts a different way now.
I would recommend as it was insightful, but it wasn't my favourite read about the family.
March 7, 2018
I loved this book, it got me out of a reading funk with its whimsy, its sense of humour and its literary excellence. I was reaching for the dictionary in every section, learning new ways of expressing myself all in the name of the Brontes.
One of the great strengths it carries with a very light touch is an addict's experience of a family in which addiction took its toll. The fact that addictions seemed to contribute to the literary richness of the Haworth Parsonage has rarely been explored, but Sutherland's almost throwaway admission of three decades' sobriety sits at the heart of this title, and informs the oeuvre it covers in a way few other critics could.
This title is an accessible way for non-academics to cut through the Bronte crap and get to some core truths of the era in which they created.
One of the great strengths it carries with a very light touch is an addict's experience of a family in which addiction took its toll. The fact that addictions seemed to contribute to the literary richness of the Haworth Parsonage has rarely been explored, but Sutherland's almost throwaway admission of three decades' sobriety sits at the heart of this title, and informs the oeuvre it covers in a way few other critics could.
This title is an accessible way for non-academics to cut through the Bronte crap and get to some core truths of the era in which they created.
September 8, 2018
A birthday gift from a friend that is well worth a read!
This is more of a book of interesting facts, interpretation of events and amusing anecdotes from a very famous family and it is all told in alphabetical order.
As a fan of the bronte sisters I was deeply invested in this book as it told me more about things I already knew and it surprised me with things I didn’t know and has made me want to explore the family further. I haven’t read all the Bronte novels, but now that I have finished ‘The Brontesaurus’ I want to read more Bronte fiction.
If you are a fan of the Bronte sisters then I highly recommend this and it was only published in 2017 so all the facts and stories are up to date!
This is more of a book of interesting facts, interpretation of events and amusing anecdotes from a very famous family and it is all told in alphabetical order.
As a fan of the bronte sisters I was deeply invested in this book as it told me more about things I already knew and it surprised me with things I didn’t know and has made me want to explore the family further. I haven’t read all the Bronte novels, but now that I have finished ‘The Brontesaurus’ I want to read more Bronte fiction.
If you are a fan of the Bronte sisters then I highly recommend this and it was only published in 2017 so all the facts and stories are up to date!
December 25, 2017
Hugely entertaining and very much in the vein of the author's previous outings, 'Is Heathcliff a Murderer?', 'Henry V, War Criminal?' and 'Can Jane Eyre be Happy?'. A definite must for anyone remotely interested in the Howarth clan as well as for those of us with more than a passing knowledge of the Brontes' oeuvre.
Highly recommended, being both intelligent and amusing; this serves as a good introduction to the world of the more piously minded and serious literary criticism that has plagued the Brontes over the decades.
Highly recommended, being both intelligent and amusing; this serves as a good introduction to the world of the more piously minded and serious literary criticism that has plagued the Brontes over the decades.
Read
January 20, 2024I don’t want to give this one a rating because it’s a nonfiction and I’m not sure how I feel about the content. Some of the background information was interesting, but I disagreed with Mr. Sutherland on several points. Some examples: Rochester killed Bertha (nope) and Nellie Dean is the actual villain (another no). Also, the sisters all shared the same toothbrush (??) and Emily had an unnatural relationship with her dog (what?!?!). There are more…
February 15, 2026
A set of alphabetical mini-essays, theories, definitions and discussions all themed around the Bronte siblings. Jon Sutherland clearly knows his stuff; this isn't a comprehensive or chronological history of the family, but each factoid is genuinely interesting. It made me want to do further research, but more importantly, I now know what "wuthering" means!
March 11, 2017
Perfect for anybody Bronte obsessed, couldn't put it down. Read it in one sitting, very easy to follow. Examines (briefly) the main myths and queries around the sisters. Not always an answer but summarises the main evidence and arguments. Nice gossipy feel, recommended.
March 17, 2018
Fun, light, interesting read. Jane Eyre is, without a doubt, my favorite book, and I enjoyed the respect this author had for Jane Eyre and the Brontë family while still adding to their mystique. This book was filled with lots of little known facts and interesting theories.
November 10, 2019
I loved this, but then I love everything related to Jane Eyre and the Brontes. The short, humorous encyclopedic style makes for a quick read, but is fragmented enough that it would probably be deeply confusing for readers who don't have some familiarity with the subject.
August 30, 2023
A kinda fun way to write a biography, but for a professor of English, Sutherland has a inappropriate predilection for the minor sentence, which I find an unnecessary affectation. (Trying to get down with the kids?)
July 11, 2017
An excellent collection of thoughts and trivia about the Brontes and their published works.
January 6, 2018
I found this a very entertaining read and thought the different chapters were imaginative. However there was a number of factual errors in the book which was disappointing.
January 6, 2018
Very absorbing. Funny but informative. Fun to read if you are already a fan of the Brontes.
July 27, 2018
More like a 4.5. The only reason I rated it down half a star was that there were some entries I didn't find interesting. I absolutely bloody loved this though. Such an interesting read! It's only made my love of the Brontes grow stronger.
March 10, 2020
Super interesting little tidbits with places recommended with more information throughout. Sutherland has a great voice and I'm about to research more from him to read more
March 1, 2021
A brilliant short snippet type book diving into all things Brontë
September 30, 2022
I learnt some more Bronte facts and I appreciated the author's touch of humour and his personality throughout that made the book less dry.
January 6, 2023
An absolutely brilliant, insightful and comical read. A must if you are a fan of the Brontes.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews