Austen or Bronte

The Washington Post published an interesting article debating between Bronte or Austen. I don't think I can choose between them. Austen and the Brontes are so different but they appeal to us in different ways. Some people have argued that Austen is a little boring in that she only focuses on the conversations of the genteel class. However, Austen writes with a witty satire and creates genuinely likable characters. I mean how can one not like and respect Elizabeth Bennett or Emma Woodhouse? The Brontes, on the other hand, write such passionate, chaotic, and dramatic novels. Emily's Heathcliff and Catherine are such complex, troubling characters that readers are torn about loving or hating them. Same with Charlotte. Do we really want Jane to end up with Rochester? His actions are rather disturbing at time.

The article from The Washington Post wonders why the Brontes are making a comeback in the movies, stating that "Some analysts have wondered if the Brontes are built for economic downturn — that difficult times draw us to difficult stories. The Bronte heroes find happiness, but not without losing a hand or their eyesight, or having their manor burned down. It’s a bruised happiness, one that might appeal to the foreclosed modern viewer." This is an interesting point. I hadn't considered how our economic times may influence our choice in movies. I suppose we want to go to movies where the characters struggle and don't have an easy path. I wonder if a Wuthering Heights is in the works...