The Obscure Reading Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Jude the Obscure Archives
>
Feb. 21st-28th. Discussion of "Part Fifth: At Aldbrickham and Elsewhere" and "Part Sixth: At Christminster Again"
Hi all, how liberating not to have to worry about spoilers! :-)This must be one of the bleakest and most tragic stories in classical literature. My heart broke the most for little Father Time who, in his hypersensitive and depressive state, had no fighting chance to survive the hostility of a judgmental society that despised an unconventional family. Marriage as an institution was revered in Victorian society; Sue was punished severely for her unwillingness to enter into marriage with Jude. It is ironic and cruel that both Sue and Jude were each made to marry the partner they loathe, not once but twice.
Did you all wonder if Sue ever did love Jude truly for himself? At one point, it dawned on Jude that Sue had never candidly declared her love for him. Could it be that Sue was only in love with love? Arabella's reappearance put her in fear of losing Jude and she reluctantly agreed to get married but did not follow through. Aunt Drusilla was right after all that the Fawleys and Sue's side of the family were not suited for marriage. Sue seemed ill suited to be a wife and mother. I recall her crying at the burden of being a mother, "But it seems such a terribly tragic thing to bring beings into the world - so presumptuous - that I question my right to do it sometimes." And so it is horrible poetic justice that she ended up losing all her children. Incredibly sad.
When Arabella came into the picture, I felt that she was a woman who could get what she wanted. I never dreamed to what lengths she would go. It was cold hearted to leave Jude dead and go to the fair , and to encounter her new paramour. She reminds me of a black widow spider. Sue on the other hand went from a free spirit to regressing and transforming into acceptable society of the time. What a price to pay for conformity. What person would share what she did with little Father Time. I knew something bad was going to happen, but never expected a suicide and murder. Too much weight for an over sensitive child trying to process adult feelings or fix adult problems.
Jude had high aspirations , but as they say , life got in the way. He too was highly sensitive.
Mod
Hardy lost me, however, with that telegraphed effort with "Father Time." You knew something was coming, the way Hardy went out of his way to describe this kid as dour-isn't-the-word-for-it.
Anyway, a kid with psychopathic tendencies might do such a thing in such a way (and even that seems extreme), but not a kid who just heard his "mom" bemoan hard times (Dickens again!).
In other words, my suspension of disbelief did not suspend that far and the melodrama was a big turn-off because it didn't ring true. I just cannot accept that this was the kid's literal interpretation enacted "for the good of all."
The buildup to tragedy in the course of 400+ pages really hit me upon Jude's death and Sue's decision to become Richard's wife again. I felt like Hardy developed this really well. At the same time, I felt like the character of Father Time was not really developed very well and then when the murders and suicide took place, it seemed somewhat contrived to me.
I also thought, however, that the idea behind Arabella and Jude's son being one of the actors in this tragedy was a good idea but Father Time should have been older and there needed to be more "evil" backstory to him to explain why he would do what he did.
Can we consider that Jude had one or more tragic flaws? I think we may have covered many of them in the discussion of the last couple of chapters.
Mod
I agree that Little Father Time's dastardly deed was over the top, but he was so troubled and strange from the time we met him that it didn't exactly surprise me.
I'm going to give some thought to Jude's tragic flaws. I agree with Carol that he was too highly sensitive. Is that a flaw? If he had had some direction in his early life, could he have learned to cope better with it? I think the tragic events of his life were certainly his responsibility, but I can't bring myself to blame him for them.
Kathleen wrote: "After what happened when Sue left the children, and when Arabella left Jude … I have to say, Hardy made me a little afraid to leave the house while family members are there sleeping!I agree that ..."
I can’t totally say it was all his fault. There are circumstances that were not in his control.
Mod
I think Phillotson really was not who he appeared to be. He gave Jude false hopes , but after his failure, he never gave Jude a second glance. So from the git go you just knew Jude was not going to be a scholar. He was so easily misled. First by the Doctor, then Arabella, Sue , the list goes on. Hardy set this book up brilliantly , except it was hard to accept a child of little Father Time’s age, could phantom things beyond his years. I know Hardy told us, but still hard to really accept all aspects . Suicide, maybe, but to kill the other children because he perceived they were to menny. I don’t think children think that way, jealousy yes definitely, they could kill because of jealousy. The other was hard to swallow in my opinion.
Mod
Hardy certainly drove home his messages about poor Jude.
As time passes Jude is not obscure in the literary sense. Hardy might have been surprised at the acclaim the novel has achieved over the years. I didn’t find the novel over dramatized or sensationalized at all. There were some parts dealing with Sue and Jude that tended to be over emotional. Jude was a walking tragedy waiting to happen. He was not melodramatic to me. He over thought almost everything in his life. He could have used some good Zen Buddhism in his life.
Hardy might have benefited from it as well. The overwhelming sadness permeates the entire novel. You know it will not end well. We can’t even speculate the what if’s in Jude’s life. Hardy guided me to the ending as he wanted it.
The only confusion was Sue’s about face and abandonment of her self. Makes me think she was living a lie all those years in the guise of a free spirit .
I still can’t accept Little Father Time as her downfall. Can someone explain to me how you rationalize a child understanding a conversation that leads to him murdering his siblings, because there were to many. Wouldn’t most children only take their own life ?
That was a bit of a stretch for me.
Laysee wrote: "Hi all, how liberating not to have to worry about spoilers! :-)This must be one of the bleakest and most tragic stories in classical literature. My heart broke the most for little Father Time who..."
Yes, this is truly heartbreaking and gruesome. It proved to be far darker than the redemption I first predicted, and then it was even darker than I feared about midway.
As to your question about Sue, I don't doubt that Jude and Sue loved each other as best they could, but they were bound in a society where they couldn't fully be themselves. They were incomplete themselves, so they couldn't enjoy a full love the way people ideally wish to have (or receive). Wasn't that type of love a privilege anyway? Even royalty and the "upper crust" had arranged marriages based upon tradition and suitability (essentially, marriages that benefitted others). Even as I type this, I think about the little I know of Queen Victoria herself. Was it true that at the beginning of their marriage she loved Albert more than he loved her? When she became a widow, didn't she have a love affair that she had to keep secret? Marriage was acceptable if it was proper and approved, and personal choice and love were not really considered for a functioning society.
Carol wrote: "As time passes Jude is not obscure in the literary sense. Hardy might have been surprised at the acclaim the novel has achieved over the years. I didn’t find the novel over dramatized or sensatio..."
Ha ha! I think I could use a bit more Zen Buddhism in my life, too. As for Little Father Time, I agree with you; though this was exceptionally sad for me, I never believed that this was logical or at least not feasible as I replayed this in my mind's eye. I never really thought of him as a fully developed character. He was more of a warning for me, or perhaps he was a symbol of what society -- what we -- get wrong. What happens to a community without any conscience or compassion? What happens to the children? What happens to our future?
I'm not exactly sure when I shifted my perspective, but I began to read this more as a cautionary fable rather than a narrative of developed characters. Even with Jude, I would go back and forth between seeing him as a unique man with aspirations trapped in a rigid society and a literary-based archetype (a doomed martyr or that mad, noble knight).
Sandra wrote: "I just finished. Such a sad story. I was actually quite moved by Father Time. I understand his behavior may seem unmotivated, but I recognize how tragic his life was. Some might say that when Oedip..."I'm not sure how to answer about the melodramatic distinction. I'm going to process that in my "in-between times" today. Watch for my answer. I'm intrigued by your references to Oedipus, and I may even revisit that drama.
Admittedly, I'm disillusioned right now in life. Too much of the poverty of the book -- too much of its desperation -- can be applied in parallel stories, not so much for me but for my students, adults in community college. They represent a wide variety of backgrounds, but one consistent theme is all are living simple or even impoverished lives. Though I most likely would not choose entire Thomas Hardy novels for my particular courses, I may use some of these chapters or excerpts for future lessons. I'm interested to see how students themselves will respond.
Mod
To me, Jude's end is tragedy; Father Time's and the other two barely mentioned kids (Sue's and Jude's) ends are melodrama. Of course, I am also taking into account the development of literature over time. What might be melodramatic in ancient Greek lit might not be in Victorian lit.
Mod
This must be one of the bleakest and most tragic stories in classical literature. My heart broke the most for little ..."
I agree, Laysee and Jan, that Sue and Jude are intended to show "true love" in all its complications. But, like Jan, I never felt fully invested in the characters and think it might be that Hardy used them as a foil against society, the Church, and other harsh monoliths. In other words, the characters aren't the point themselves so much as they're used to MAKE a point.
As aggravating as Sue was in Parts Third and Fourth, I still felt sorry for (or maybe disappointed in) how quickly she folded in the last segment. Almost like a flagellant, she decided to "punish" herself with a marriage that didn't include love. (Cue Tina Turner: "What's love got to do with it, do with it?")
One true hero of sorts is the bit character Mrs. Edlin. No there's a woman who can see through all this nonsense, a character who thinks like the reader (who says to himself, "Why isn't it that easy for EVERYone to see in this story?").
Ken wrote:"... it might be that Hardy used them as a foil against society, the Church, and other harsh monoliths. In other words, the characters aren't the point themselves so much as they're used to MAKE a point." That's an astute observation, Ken. I do believe that Hardy is making a social commentary on the plight of the powerless poor in Victorian society and the damage the Church can do even to seemingly irreligious and unconventional folks like Sue.
I was struck by how Sue and Jude reversed positions re religion by the end of the novel. Sue was 'beaten' to feel guilt, sought penance, and became rigidly religious; Jude went from parting ways with his doctrines to losing faith altogether. Gotta hand it to Hardy how he drove the plot to this inevitable end.
Mod
Mod
And Ken, I'm glad you brought up not being fully vested in the characters. I was surprised that I didn't feel that sad at the end, and decided it was because the tragedy seemed to be present from the beginning--in the very tone Hardy took. It all seemed inevitable almost.
I agree that Jude and Sue are meant to show true love, with an interesting emphasis on their similarities and comradeship.
My take on Sue's reversal at the end comes from a quote I noted from earlier in their relationship: She said: “But I did want and long to ennoble some man to high aims; and when I saw you, and knew you wanted to be my comrade, I – shall I confess it? – thought that man might be you.”
I think Sue's problems stemmed from being the "new women" she is supposed to be, at a time when that brought on her the wrath of society. She was too sensitive to take it and be that woman anyway, so projected her dreams onto others. That can really mess the people projected upon up, which it certainly did Jude, Phillotson and that first guy. And it can make a character seem pretty contradictory.
Mod
Jan, this is brilliant! That explains his name as well. This is so helpful. So is your view of this as a cautionary fable, which explains some of our reactions to the characters.
Jan wrote: "As to your question about Sue, I don't doubt that Jude and Sue loved each other as best they could, but they were bound in a society where they couldn't fully be themselves. They were incomplete themselves, so they couldn't enjoy a full love the way people ideally wish to have (or receive). Wasn't that type of love a privilege anyway?.."Kathleen wrote: "I agree that Jude and Sue are meant to show true love, with an interesting emphasis on their similarities and comradeship."
Thank you, Jan and Kathleen! Your responses make good sense to me.
Carol wrote: I think Sue's problems stemmed from being the "new women" she is supposed to be, at a time when that brought on her the wrath of society. She was too sensitive to take it and be that woman anyway, so projected her dreams onto others."
Great observation, Carol. Spot on! I agree that Sue wishes to be the liberated female at least in her mind; however, emotionally, she is unable to bear the heat of social opinion.
Love all the thoughtful discussion.
Mod
I have to go with Ken in my perception of this novel and these characters. Highly melodramatic to a fault for today's readers, it was probably much more acceptable in Harry's time. The murder/suicide by Little Father Time was totally unrealistic. By my calculations he couldn't have been more that 9 years old; maybe because Hardy had no children he had no perception of how children think, even one so morose and bleak natured as he.The two most sensible characters in this whole novel were the Aunt and Mrs. Edlin. Hardy did get that right, age and survival give one a unique glimpse into human nature and common sense.
Diane wrote: "I have to go with Ken in my perception of this novel and these characters. Highly melodramatic to a fault for today's readers, it was probably much more acceptable in Harry's time. The murder/suici..."There you go human nature and common sense is what we can take away from this book. Most didn’t have common sense and gave into their base nature.
Sandra wrote: "Jan, Kathleen, Darrin, Carol, Laysee—just to mention a few—thanks for such thoughtful reflections and comments. I have enjoyed reading all the thoughts on this thread."Thank you for including me in the reading and discussion. I have read every post and learned much from all of you. It has been a good and interesting discussion and has opened up a whole new genre of literature to me that I am going to start exploring...once I get through all the other stacks of books I want to read!
In regard to Ken's suggestion to do this group read again my reply is "yes", definitely! Count me in. It doesn't have to be Shakespeare. I am honestly willing to read anything new.
Mod
I don't want to distract from this discussion, but I am soon to send out a poll to all group members, gauging interest in staying together as a public reading group here on GR.
Maybe we'll be "The Obscure Reading Group," in honor of our roots.
Also in the poll will be # of reads we'd like to do a year. I have no interest in monthly reads like many GR groups do, but I wouldn't mind a few times a year.
Watch your poll inbox for more details soon!
Sent my vote via poll. I like the name too.
Mod
After Jude asks why she told Father Time what she did, she replies:
"I can't tell. It was that I wanted to be truthful. I couldn't bear deceiving him as to the facts of life. And yet I wasn't truthful, for with a false delicacy I told him too obscurely.---Why was I half-wiser than my fellow-women? And not entirely wiser! Why didn't I tell him pleasant untruths, instead of half-realities? It was my want of self control, so that I could neither conceal things nor reveal them!"
I made note of this quote because it is one of several instances where the word "obscure" (or a variation of it) is used by Hardy.
I also thought this confession scene provided a microcosm of her personality in general, how it played out with Jude and Phillotson, why she came across as a tad maddening to some of us in Parts Third and Fourth.
Arabella and Phillotson—they end up as the survivors. I’m not surprised by Arabella, but Phillotson’s tenacity and his canniness—that remarrying Sue would restore his standing and material gain struck me. The losses for Jude and Sue are unmitigating, and when I finished I remembered a phrase of Hardy’s that I had heard at some point, “crass casualty.” It comes from an early poem of Hardy’s; Jude was Hardy’s last novel—so Hardy’s bleak view of how individuals are tossed by Fate seemed to be an idea he carried through much/most (?) of his adult life. I’ve included the poem below.
Hap
IF but some vengeful god would call to me
From up the sky, and laugh: “Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love’s loss is my hate’s profiting!”
Then would I bear, and clench myself, and die, 5
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;
Half-eased, too, that a Powerfuller than I
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.
But not so. How arrives it joy lies slain,
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown? 10
—Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan….
These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.
1866.
I believed that in this book, Sue was the most beaten down and affected by reality, changing her entire philosophy because of the death of her children. From being entirely against marriage and the beliefs of society, she reverted to giving up everything important to her and subjecting herself to a man she didn't care for, replacing the joy of life with repentance and subjectiveness. She chose a living death, and Jude chose to end his life. Arabella, of course, chose to continue making a good life for herself, however she could manage it.
Mod
Thanks for sharing that poem, Cathleen. A good insight to the writer's frame of mind and worldview!
Mod
Hmn. Your post brings up a question I often posed to my students when we finished a novel: "Which character changed the most, and why did it happen?"
Often the question was debatable (always a good thing in the classroom, as it requires textual evidence to debate).
I think I might agree with you, though, that Sue is the biggest change of all. What a fall! As I said earlier, her submission to Phillotson in Marriage, the Sequel, is akin to Medieval flagellants or Christians wearing hairshirts.
Sinners in the hands of an angry God, indeed!
Thinking back, I was disappointed in Sue’s character. I understand it. She was more self assured at the beginning , I liked that . She was going to break through walls. It is indeed a slippery slope. Does she buck society and live a life of unconventionally or conform to society’s protocol!. In truth she was an old fashioned girl after all. Is there a point where this was revealed in the early chapters? And at one place in time do we perceive her duplicity, deep as it is. I think she was just as surprised that society rules bogged her down. It was a slow draining of her self. Like she was leaking out all along.
Arabella, on the other hand never wavered from who she was. We knew she was the bad woman from the very start, and she fulfilled all our beliefs ,as the novel,progressed.
Ah Jude, Jude, Jude, your head and heart were turned at every corner. You really never had a chance, is that Hardy ‘s way of digging at the limits on the poor to keep them downtroddened? Hasn’t that always been the way of the world? Don’t educate the masses .
Be an independent thinker, explore old and new ideas. Jude was wrapped up in the ancient studies, there was not much room for new ideas. When confronted with them , he tried to understand, but the old ways won out. It left him depressed. Sue was a fresh new idea, He wanted the safety of marriage.
What if the novel had been “Sue the Obscure” instead . Imagine the roles reversed. What would be our expectations of Sue and Jude? Seeing Sue as the conformer and Jude the visionary. What names would we place on each of their actions?
Carol wrote: "Thinking back, I was disappointed in Sue’s character. I understand it. She was more self assured at the beginning , I liked that . She was going to break through walls. It is indeed a slippery slop..."These are such interesting points, Carol. The whole of this novel makes me wonder—maybe there’s only so much leeway for one to be an individual or to push against society’s norms before he or she gets snapped back or penalized into conformity. In some ways, Sue seems an innocent; when she told Jude about the scholar and how she broke his heart, she seemed as if she were totally surprised by his desire for her. Could she have been that naive? She keeps on, through much of the novel, pushing against what she sees as the deadening ties of convention. Perhaps her final submission to Phillotson shows her exhaustion—mental, physical, emotional. As I’m thinking of this—maybe Sue’s diminishment and reversal is even more of a tragedy than Jude’s.
Cathleen wrote: "Carol wrote: "Thinking back, I was disappointed in Sue’s character. I understand it. She was more self assured at the beginning , I liked that . She was going to break through walls. It is indeed a..."I think the tragedy is Sue, the more I think about it Jude was the melodramatic one. . The points you made Cathleen brought this to light for me. She was a living Greek tragedy wasn’t she.
Mod
Good point, though "society" used to be a monolithic thing until recently. Nowadays, like "Choose Your Own Adventure," you can choose your own truth and your own norms depending on what "feed" you're on (technology---and specifically the Internet---have made this possible).
Thus, there are more ways to "rebel" safely because you have a lot of company either way, sheep-le being what they are.
Kathleen wrote: "Jan wrote: "Carol wrote: "As for Little Father Time, I agree with you; though this was exceptionally sad for me, I never believed that this was logical or at least not feasible as I replayed this i..."Hello, I have a few minutes to actually look up quotes for this discussion group. Yay!
* * * * * I revisited Sue's and Jude's reaction when learning of this child.
"The poor child seems to be wanted by nobody!" Sue replied, and her eyes filled. // To which Jude soon replied, "What a view of life he must have, mine or not mine!" and then proceeded to speculate as many have mentioned about taking the child in. It made me think of the various reports and images I've seen about the orphans, the children's workhouses, and machinery/labor. Oddly, I didn't have any images of any of Dickens' characters. I think that with this particular evening of reading, I was taking in the characters and still hoping for redemption for them. After all: even the poorest among us has the right to happiness, true? I liked Jude's comment (Hardy's critique?) "All the little ones of our time are collectively the children of us adults at the time, and entitled to our general care. That excessive regard of parents for their own children, and their dislike of other people's, is like class-feeling, patriotism, save-your-own-soul-ism . . . a mean exclusiveness at bottom."
When I saw their initial reactions, I returned to the letter, thinking that I had missed the child's name altogether. With a closer read the second time, I found the contradictions in Arabella's letter about her child to be a bit jarring. She reported, " . . . my mother and father. . . have rather a hard struggle over there, and I am settled comfortably here" but her comfort must come first, correct? Though I never particularly liked her before, I didn't actually dislike her until this letter. She writes that he is "of an intelligent age" yet "not old enough to be of any use in the bar nor will be for years and years. . . ." I couldn't help but feel sorry for this nameless child even before meeting him when he officially entered "in person."
When this little boy arrived, he was yet another little bird that Jude wanted to take care of. (Remember how Jude and Sue referred her being a bird various times in the pages leading up to this "discovery"? Well, in starting their little family -- even with the complete surprise -- Jude seemed to be taking care of Little Father Time with sad hope. Is that possible? Sad hope?) Jude even takes great pride and hope when saying, "Sue, Darling, I have an idea! We'll educate him and train him with a view to University." He was passing on his dreams to his son at that moment.
Well, through that second week of discussion, I began to think that Hardy was using Little Father Time as symbolic of all children. This line made me think he was more symbolic, "He was Age masquerading as Juvenility, and doing it so badly that his real self showed through crevices. A ground-swell from ancient years of nigh. . . " So, I began to wonder if tragedy would befall the little make-shift family when he met Sue and asked over and again in variations, Is it you who is my real mother at last?" but then later said, "If I was you, Mother, I wouldn't marry Father!"
Well, that started me thinking about the story in a new way. I hadn't gotten to the murders, but I wondered if tragedy would come as a social warning. I don't know exactly when I started the shift in interpretation. I also wondered if Hardy changed part of his approach with the serialized sections.
I marked this excerpt from the last section when I came across it with the question, "Is this like the blood-letting and the hog?" It takes place when Jude and Sue are witnessing other weddings.* * * *
". . . . the new husband and wife came into the open daylight. Sue sighed.
"'The flowers in the bride's hand are sadly like the garland which decked the heifers of sacrifice in old times!"
* * * *
What a dismal image! At the time, I thought that their upcoming marriage would be problematic - yes - but I didn't see the various twists (or non-marriage) to come. Hardy truly wasn't happy in his time, was he? I've commented various times that Jude needed to be in a different social class, but now I think Hardy needed to live in the 1920s, maybe even having a bit of fun along the way.
Another question I wrote while reading the last part. "Are Jude's and Sue's hearts going to be broken? What will happen to the family of birds?" (I'm drawn to birds.) This little passage comes from Arabella's visit to the doctor in the last section.
* * * * *
"He produced a small phial of clear liquid. 'A love-philtre, such as was used by the ancients with great effect. . . . a distillation of the juices of dove's hearts."
Mod
Jan, at the end of your post, you mention something that always occurred to me when reading Victorian lit. (chiefly Dickens) that I knew was serialized. Namely, how much was the author affected by the unfolding narrative over time and by the public's reaction to it?
No doubt, many authors aren't 100% sure of where there novels are going, even when they are well into them. Serialization also offers the luxury of reconsideration.
As for Father Time and symbolism, I'm not sure about that. I do think, though, it was a statement about society's mistreatment of children of some sort. When the murders/suicide came, a bit of a hamfisted statement, but a statement nonetheless.
Good Morning, Ken,I wondered about the serialization, too. Especially as these developments came at the end of Hardy's narrative, was he trying to make an explicit point all the clearer to his readers? These last pages are filled with the silence, the "oppressive atmosphere" made all the bleaker with the headstone, engraving, and work orders in general falling. Was Hardy making everything bleaker (than normal) intentionally in order to truly teach an obvious but unlearned lesson? It seemed almost urgent to me while I was reading it.
To me, Little Father Time seems to be less of a boy than a composite of sadness and misery -- yes, as you wrote, "a statement about society's mistreatment of children." He has many moments of foreshadowing what he'll do. In an earlier post, I mentioned about the flowers for the bridal bouquet being the same ones used in ancient times for sacrifice. Some time soon after that, Little Father Time says, "I should like the flowers very very much, if I didn't keep thinking they'd be all withered in a few days!"
Sue's own connection to Little Father Time parallels her feelings for Jude, I believe. They created a relationship he could never have with his own mother or her parents. I believe Sue and Jude see the potential for him that Jude has now given up on in life. Sue may even sense the trouble we readers anticipate, but she says ". . . .whatever we do, wherever we go, you won't take him away from me, Jude dear? I could not let him go now! The cloud upon his young mind makes him so pathetic to me; I do hope to lift it some day!" She is the hope for the children (and I again return to Little Father Time as symbolic for children in general). Perhaps she is the only hope for them in this story.
Sue is the only logical "survivor" for this story, I suppose. The children and Jude are physically dead. Arabella and Richard have died spiritually. Sue continues to live, pragmatic and determined but still kind. Besides, she is the only one who seemed to have a vision of a world beyond the immediate. I don't recall the section of the book, but she was the one speculating about 50 years, 80 years, and so on into the future. We are the lucky readers who get to see what comes later, but Sue was right: A new world would come about. True, WWI would be the drastic result (or one of the results) of this need for change, but that change was definitely coming.
So, in my mind's eye, Sue was the logical choice for survivor. (Ha! I'd cast her different times as an other-worldly nun, a femme fatal, an early suffragette, and many others as I read this.) In an odd way, the deaths of the others made sense. The learned teacher couldn't see potential (or principle) for a better world to come; he focused on only his own own advancement and status. Jude -- ah, Jude, the gentle dreamer -- had aspirations that were ideal but also far too idealistic; he ended up carving headstones for death instead of pillars for cathedrals. Arabella, well, she is simply chaos and selfishness so focuses on "now" -- her "now" at that. The elders were well-meaning, but they seemed to place far too much emphasis on tradition, family lore, and rigidness today that was cast so long before in the past. Hmm. . . I'm actually glad that Hardy's "lost ones" spanned different classes in society.
Well, I'm going to show my students in my 10:00 composition class and then those in my 11:00 literature class what transpired in this discussion group. I tell them over and over, "You'll use these skills throughout all your life. Keep developing them. Keep learning. Keep writing."
Well, off I go! Jan
Am I the only one who is left wondering what happened between Sue and her father, or did I miss something that might have explained it? She was an only child, raised alone by him from a very young age, and they had been close at one time. Then nothing, no contact at all. He lived in London, and she nixed all suggestions to go there. I wonder that Hardy did not develop or explain that relationship at all.
I thought they fell out because she didn’t conform to her father’s wishes. I’ll will see if I can find the passage.
Diane wrote: "Am I the only one who is left wondering what happened between Sue and her father, or did I miss something that might have explained it? She was an only child, raised alone by him from a very young ..."I had all but forgotten that, Diane.
I agree with Carol that she didn't conform to her father's expectations, but that's consistent with how she's been with just about everyone here. I wonder if that is part of her own responsible self. She seemed incredibly duty-bound rather than joyful even though she was pursuing freedom (what I consider as a joyful stance).
One count in the book Drusilla says, Sue’s parents lived with her at Marygreen, when Sue was small. The mother took Sue to London, then in another account her father took her to Christminster, then abandoned her to her own devices. Sue never really said what became of her mother as I recall. At what point did Sue come into her father’s care. When Jude goes to his aunt to ask her about this, she tells him his parents couldn't get along and separated, his mother later drowning herself. His father's sister couldn't get along with her husband and eventually left him, taking her daughter Sue with her. ie London
Carol wrote: "One count in the book Drusilla says, Sue’s parents lived with her at Marygreen, when Sue was small. The mother took Sue to London, then in another account her father took her to Christminster, then..."Ah yes. . . It seems that the tragedies they grew up with continued to haunt and haunt them.
Coming directly after teaching, this is the most tragic part of the whole novel. My perspective? I've always liked Jude. I genuinely believe that he did the best he could; he WAS active in pursuing the profession and people he loved, but he seemed to have a withdrawn, shy nature. Ultimately, he was run-down by life, and I find that tragic. (Yes, I still look on the children's characters as symbolic, so maybe I'm not touched so deeply by them.) * * * * *
* * * * *
“It is a difficult question, my friends, for any young man-- that question I had to grapple with, and which thousands are weighing at the present moment in these uprising times-- whether to follow uncritically the track he finds himself in, without considering his aptness for it, or to consider what his aptness or bent may be, and re-shape his course accordingly. I tried to do the latter, and I failed. But I don't admit that my failure proved my view to be a wrong one, or that my success would have made it a right one; though that's how we appraise such attempts nowadays--I mean, not by their essential soundness, but by their accidental outcomes. If I had ended by becoming like one of these gentlemen in red and black that we saw dropping in here by now, everybody would have said: 'See how wise that young man was, to follow the bent of his nature!' But having ended no better than I began they say: 'See what a fool that fellow was in following a freak of his fancy!”
"However it was my poverty and not my will that consented to be beaten. It takes two or three generations to do what I tried to do in one; and my impulses -- affections -- vices perhaps they should be called -- were too strong not to hamper a man without advantages; who should be as cold-blooded as a fish and as selfish as a pig to have a really good chance of being one of his country's worthies. You may ridicule me -- I am quite willing that you should -- I am a fit subject, not doubt. But I think if you knew what I have gone through these last few years you would rather pity me."
* * * * *
* * * * *
My commentary: As I wrote above, I like Jude and admire his dreams. Written elsewhere, he and Sue did genuinely love each other (so I believe) but were struggling just to be themselves. I will always like the character Sue for her comment to him shortly after this speech:
* * * * *
* * * * *
"Don't tell them that!" whispered Sue with tears, at perceiving Jude's state of mind. "You weren't that. You struggled nobly to acquired knowledge, and only the meanest souls in the world would blame you!"
* * * * *
* * * * *
My commentary
Well. . . .I think that may be my ending remark for this book. It brings me back to Jude's original dream of becoming educated and respected, a "worthy" in a society that didn't value individualism as much as conformity. Yes, the rest of the story is sad, but it doesn't ring true for me. I'm probably much more influenced by my original hope of seeing Jude's story come full-circle than I earlier admitted (and I had hoped he would find genuine happiness).
I look forward to reading more of your comments! I'll be responding back little by little in between essays and lessons.
A smile, Jan
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Here we can discuss not only the final two parts to Hardy's novel, but what they mean to the story as a whole.
What's more, you no longer have to worry about spoilers!