[WH] - Why I hate this book.

"'These things happened last winter, sir,' said Mrs. Dean; 'hardly more than a year ago,'" (pg 221).

There are a ton of reasons why I hate this novel, but they all revolve around Wuthering Heights major theme of doubling.

• The story is frame story in which Lockwood tells the story about how Nelly told him a story in which she took a very minor role.  I think the purpose was to make the events seem more realistic, but frankly, I think it just made the flashbacks more confusing as a time line is almost impossible to form.  The above quote took me forever to figure out the logistics of whether she was talking in the present or the past.
• I really want to write a story about the protagonist, but unfortunately there appear to be two (if that is even legal).  Cathy drives most of the plot at the Grange, but Heathcliff drives all of the plot at the Heights.
• Heathcliff obviously seems to be the protagonist, but he is also an antagonist to Cathy at the same time.  At the same time though, it could also be said that Nelly is just as large an antagonist for not letting her love Linton fully.
• Why would Catherine ever have a baby girl named Cathy?  At least name it Kathy or Quatheryryne or something so I have some way of denoting a difference between the two.  I guess this just shows the similarities between the two halves of the plot.
• Unless I missed something, Catherine Earnshaw married to become Catherine Linton where as Catherine Linton is engaged to become Catherine Earnshaw.  Did I mention the similarities between Catherine and Catherine?
• Whose idea was it to name her characters Hindley, Heathcliff and Hareton?  Emily Bronte really seemed to be struggling when she was naming her characters for this book.

Narrator Confusion?

9.  Though Othello is the protagonist, the majority of soliloquies and asides are given by Iago.  Why?

"I hate the Moor, and it is thought abroad that 'twixt my sheets he's done my office.  I know not if 't be true, but I for mere suspicion in that kind will do as if for surety" I.iii.366-370.

We brought this up briefly in class, but as I read Act 3 tonight and thought more about Acts 1-2, it started to make more sense to me why this story is so confusing to me.  I had confused my protagonist!   With the story being told mainly from the evil plotting of Iago, it made me grow fond of him in the first Acts.  He mad himself sound so kind and honest and I never got the sense that he was an evil mastermind until we began to hear things more from Cassio's point of view in the third Act.

However, I want to base this analysis on the first Act.  In I.i.8-33, Iago actually made a very strong argument for himself as to why he should have been put in Cassio's position.  Had Othello told us why Cassio was put in this position, then not only would we not have been given suspense from a lack of the truth, but there would be zero conflict in this story.  We would have been given a history report in Act 1 and the entire play would be over, but by having an antagonist drive the story, it gives the reader a conflicting emotion toward who to support.  Since the reader mainly hears why Iago does what he does, it makes it sound like he has just reasons for his actions, but later Acts clearly show that he is a greedy little... man... who cannot be trusted.  Not going to lie, I feel like this story would be a lot better if it was in modern language, but from what I understand of this, I am totally on team Iago.  This probably also stems from the fact that he has those soliloquies that give us some quality one on one time to really get to the know the guy.  All that I know about everyone else is that they are fools.