Victorians! discussion
Archived Group Reads 2009-10
>
"Far From the Madding Crowd" Part 2: Chapters IX-XX
MadgeUK wrote: "When I was a young woman I certainly sent Valentines frivolously, without a thought to the effect they might have on their recipients and I think Hardy is only showing a Victorian young woman doing the same thing,"I'm not sure about the UK, but in the US when I was growing up it was standard for school kids to exchange valentines with everybody of the other gender in their class. Stores sold little kits of pre-cut valentines so all you had to do was pick the one that seemed to fit, sign (or not sign) it, and that was that. So valentines did have a very casual meaning.
But although the first Valentines Day cards date back to the 1400s, at the time Hardy was writing of they were still not commonplace, so I think his original audience would have seen it as a much more significant thing than we would, and would not have thought it extreme for Boodwood to have taken it seriously.
I absolutely love the idea of you making/sending lots of Valentines Everyman:):). I'm not sure about them not being commonplace because they became very popular in the 1800s when they began to be printed en masse, and especially after 1840 when the penny post was introduced. I think the fact that Bathsheba originally bought the card to send to the boy Teddy Coggan, the son of an employee, shows the lightheartedness of it. And she and Liddy then tossed a hymn book to see who the recipient would be. 'Bathsheba, a small yawn upon her mouth, took the pen, and with off-hand serenity directed the missive to Boldwood.' Looking at the seal Liddy had affixed she exclaimed: 'Capital!...throwing down the letter frolicsomely, Twould upset the solemnity of a parson or a clerke or two'. It was the wax seal which said 'Marry Me', not the card, which Boldwood took seriously. He had shaken the letter out of the envelope but found nothing untoward and he then became excited over the seal, which is even more bizarre.
I think Hardy intends us to see sending the valentine as having a 'strong sense of fatalism' (see notes above) because of the use of the hymn book and Boldwood behaved irrationally, in accordance with what Hardy saw to be 'the guiding principle of the universe.'
In response to the comments about Bathsheba’s intentions in her actions and whether or not she is deliberately flirtatious or naive, it seems that Hardy left very little doubt as to her naivety. For instance, he says in Ch. 18,
I think Hardy is very good at showing the complexity and the intricacies of human nature – one trait, be it flirtatiousness or otherwise, rarely defines a person as "good" or "bad".
“Bathsheba was far from dreaming that the dark and silent shape upon which she had so carelessly thrown a seed was a hotbed of tropic intensity. Had she known Boldwood’s moods her blame would have been fearful, and the stain upon her heart ineradicable. Moreover, had she known her present power for good or evil over this man, she would have trembled at her responsibility.”
I think Hardy is very good at showing the complexity and the intricacies of human nature – one trait, be it flirtatiousness or otherwise, rarely defines a person as "good" or "bad".
So far I have found the most striking references to fate in the character of Gabriel. After being wounded by fate, it seems that he responds by thereafter being totally resigned to it and is almost completely unaffected by whatever happens to him.
Early on when Gabriel loses his flock and is reduced to pursuing the life of a shepherd, it says he was left with “a dignified calm he had never before known,” which seems to suggest that accepting one’s fate, instead of fighting it, leads to contentment. However, at this point in the novel it almost seems that his resignation to his fate has left him indifferent and even dispassionate. Any thoughts?
Early on when Gabriel loses his flock and is reduced to pursuing the life of a shepherd, it says he was left with “a dignified calm he had never before known,” which seems to suggest that accepting one’s fate, instead of fighting it, leads to contentment. However, at this point in the novel it almost seems that his resignation to his fate has left him indifferent and even dispassionate. Any thoughts?
Nicki wrote: "So far I have found the most striking references to fate in the character of Gabriel. After being wounded by fate, it seems that he responds by thereafter being totally resigned to it and is almos..."Those are good points Nicki. I think Gabriel's fatalism also seems to make him more mature in his reactions to adversity whereas Boldwood's lack of fatalism seems to make him immature. I wouldn't say that Gabriel is dispassionate - he still has feelings for Bathsheba, for instance but he has the good sense not to show them because he has fatalistically accepted the situation in which he now finds himself. Boldwood, on the other hand, refuses to accept his fate vis a vis Bathsheba and by behaving passionately also acts foolishly. These are instances of the head ruling the heart and the heart ruling the head, as the idiom goes.
Wow, I've just got back after a week away and although I'm up to date with the reading there is a lot of discussion to catch up on!
MadgeUK wrote: "he still has feelings for Bathsheba, for instance but he has the good sense not to show them because he has fatalistically accepted the situation in which he now finds himself. ..."
Yes, I've read a little further and I see now that Gabriel's resignation to his fate involves more of a repression of his feelings rather than an absence of them.
Yes, I've read a little further and I see now that Gabriel's resignation to his fate involves more of a repression of his feelings rather than an absence of them.
Nicki, you're quite right. Gabriel is not the sort of man to wear his heart on his sleeve. He is quite careful to control his feelings; they exist, but he's quite cautious in sharing them. I very much like Gabriel's character in the novel. With each reading of the book I have become more aware of what a keen observer he is of everything around him; particularly anything to do with Bathsheba. In fact, it almost borders on being voyeuristic. For example, think back on when he peers into the shed and watches Bathsheba and her aunt with the cow, and then when he spies Bathsheba in her wagon admiring herself in the mirror; and again when he watches her riding down the bridle-path astride her horse. While I don't particularly think it creepy, I can see how some readers might see it so.
Getting back to your observation of Gabriel 'repressing' his feelings--
The little scene of grinding the shears in Chapter XX is an example of Gabriel opening up and sharing his feelings and/or opinions with Bathsheba; but only when invited to do so. Once he starts talking though, it seems that he always goes just a step too far and ends up irritating (vexing) Bathsheba to the point where she vociferously rejects his advice or opinion and stalks off. Hardy has given them such an interesting and dynamic relationship; one could quite easily imagine them a married couple of some ten years or so.
Nicki wrote: "...Gabriel's resignation to his fate involves more of a repression of his feelings..."Yes, there is a lot of male repression in this novel - Freud could have had a field day with it!
As I read, I am thinking of the fatalistic aspects within the story but what keeps catching my attention is the way in which the small (seemingly insignificant) actions have such far reaching conseqences. For example how (what seemed to me)a snap decision by Bathsheba to send a Valentine to Mr Boldwood, mainly due to a slight annoyance that he hasn't noticed her then sets into motion (again what seems to me) his sincerely falling in love with her and wanting to marry her. Also, how Fanny confuses All Souls with All Saints church which has the far reaching affect of Troy refusing now to marry her.I've scanned the discussion till now so sorry if this has already been mentioned but although I've noticed that some people have found Bathshebas Valentine to be an action to which they take exception - I could accept this as being merely thoughtless. However, I did take exception to her asking Gabriel his opinion of it and then ordering him off her farm for giving it!! I wasn't even 100% that his impertinence was the justification as much as not demonstrating to her that he continues to love and admire her as he used to.
I find I quite admire Gabriel and his reserved, thoughful demeanour. I don't get the sense that he isn't in touch with his emotions in so much that he accepts them but choses not to demonstrate them.
Em wrote: "As I read, I am thinking of the fatalistic aspects within the story but what keeps catching my attention is the way in which the small (seemingly insignificant) actions have such far reaching conse..."A very nice point. You could add the dog George's enthusiasm, Bathsheba looking in the mirror (if she hadn't done this, it seems to me likely that Gabriel wouldn't have paid much attention to her). I think Hardy has it right here -- life does seem to revolve around the small things.
Marialyce wrote: "It all seems a bit silly to me the little game the two of them (Bathsheba and Bloodwood are playing) Do either one of them know love? It seems so very childish of them to think that they would marr..."Oh, I couldn't agree with you more. Bathsheba,so far, seems so childish and immature when it comes to her interactions with so-called suitors...She's a bloody tease, don't you think. In Part 1 when Gabriel approaches her with the proposal, I found myself empathising with her thoughts on marriage...Well, what I mean is that I shouldn't mind being a bride at a wedding, if I could be one without having a husband. I almost found her to be a woman after my own heart, but then entered Boldwood and my thoughts on Bathsheba were soon plummeting. I find her motivation in sending the Valentine to Boldwood completely ludicrous. Boldwood's reaction to the Valentine which was even more ridiculous completely blindsided me-I expected more from him considering his age and previous experiences. It seems, maybe, that the majority of the main characters are rather shallow when it comes to the affections of love?
Thank you, Ami. I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw Bathsheba as you do. She is a tease whether knowing it or not (and how could she not) with three men falling at her feet), or not having a clue as some others have alluded to. As far as her being the head of the farm, she is seldom there so how can she be an effective leader. She is either running after one or more of the men or the men are working for her and provide her with their expertise. (running after Gabriel when the sheep eat the clover for example)
I will stay with that opinion until I see the leadership qualities other have mentioned. The only character I now respect is Gabriel Oak.
That being said, I do love the language, the settings, and the development of the characters that Mr. Hardy has achieved in this novel.
Marialyce wrote: "Thank you, Ami. I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw Bathsheba as you do. She is a tease whether knowing it or not (and how could she not) with three men falling at her feet), or not..."Well, of course she's a tease! That's what being flirtatious is all about! Again, I do not see that as a negative character trait here. We would be literally dead if we didn't flirt and tease one another. We all do it, to one degree or another.
Now, about her leadership qualities-- What, pray tell, do you expect a 19-20 year-old young woman to know about running a farm? I believe that if you carefully rethink what you've read through the first three parts of the novel you'll find that she has done pretty well. She has stepped up and let her workers know that she will care for them; she has attempted to find Fanny Robin; she fired the crooked bailiff Pennyways; she has acquitted herself admirably at the Corn Market; most importantly, she has learned to delegate authority and responsibility to those who know what they're doing. Sure she is passionate and impetuous, but what 19-20 year-old young woman isn't? I guess I would be quite interested in understanding where you think she's failed at being a 'leader,' Marialyce?
Marialyce, I want you to know that I very much appreciate your assessment, and that what I am trying to do is provide a bit of the devil's advocate. In my opinion, Hardy is not presenting a plot that is 'cut and dry' or 'black and white.' He wants each of us, as readers, to consider the full ramifications of the actions and thoughts of his characters. It is complicated, just as Life is. Cheers! Chris
Marialyce wrote: "I am sorry to say I find her irksome. She seems to be a manipulator. She wants the men to adore her from afar and yet she seems so "unaware" of the response she generates in the males around her...."
I agree that Baths is a 'manipulator'. However, I think that she is caught in the horns of a dilemna: she is woman in a leadership role. As the saying goes" If a man is assertive, he is a leader, if a woman is assertive, she is b---h". My wife was a welder for 20 years, and she took a lot of verbal abuse, even inappropriate touching. Baths is not unaware of her effect on men, but she has mixed feelings about her 'male' and 'female' roles, which causes a lot of denial and escapism into childish tricks like the letter to Boldwood.
MadgeUK wrote: "Great finds Mariadyce - thanks!I think possession in this case means sexual possession as well as a woman being the legal possession of a man."
Women can also have 'possession'. Countless songs have been written like the 1965 R&B song about a man loving a woman (this is from memory): 'he'll turn his back on his best friend if he puts her down. he would give up all of his comforts, stand out in the cold, if that's that way she says it must be'. When are we going move beyond the whole 'battle of the sexes', as if one side always has to win' ?
Karlstadt wrote: "Women can also have 'possession'. Countless songs have been written like the 1965 R&B song about a man loving a woman (this is from memory): 'he'll turn his back on his best friend if he puts her ..."Maybe just me, but I haven't a flippin' clue what this means?
Marialyce wrote: "Thank you, Ami. I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw Bathsheba as you do. She is a tease whether knowing it or not (and how could she not) with three men falling at her feet), or not..."I agree with your assessment Chris. Bathsheba owns a large farm and is the employer of quite a few people both on the farm and inside her house, in that way she is a leader, just as the owner of any enterprise is today who employs a labour force. There are daily decisions to be made about running a home and running a farm and that requires leadership. She is new to the job so does not yet have a lot of expertise and so, like many new employers, she has to rely on her workforce for advice from time to time. A good leader utilises the abilities of those around him/her. When her sheep become ill she does not have the expertise to cure them, nor do any of the other men she employs and so she has to send for Gabriel as the only expert in the area - this is not 'running after' him. Would you have expected her to let her sheep die rather than swallow her pride? Nor does she 'run after' Boldwood - it is he who runs after her. He puts her in a difficult situation - if you have ever had a man 'court' you whom you did not particularly like and tried to put him down gently, you would understand this. Troy is her downfall but what young woman, on an isolated farm, would not fall for a dashing young serjeant in a red and gold uniform and this has been part of the plot of many a Victorian novel written during the period of the Napoleonic wars - Pride and Prejudice and Vanity Fair for instance. Hardy is showing the difficulties a young woman has to face in such a society, which was entirely different to our own and cannot be judged by 21stC standards.
In our lifetimes, unless we live in an isolated area, and even then we are likely to go to college, we meet the opposite sex on a regular basis from when we are young and we learn how to conduct ourselves around them. In the sort of isolated village Hardy is writing about there were few inhabitants and the manners of the time did not allow for regular mixing of the sexes, for the normal courtship which we enjoy today. Therefore, when they did come together relations were inevitably strained and rather unrealistic. Also, there were few people available to marry - there was a great deal of interfamily, cousin to cousin marriage in such communities. This meant that you had to look at every single man/woman as a potential wife/husband or you would be 'left on the shelf' without anyone to help you in your old age, or in illness etc. This is what is propelling Boldwood, who is a middle aged man, and it also drove Gabriel to propose to Bathsheba almost as soon as he laid eyes on her. Bathsheba too is driven by the mores of her time which, even though she is an heiress, dictated that women should not live alone. Women were then brought up to use their 'womanly wiles' on men - Mary Wollstonecraft, the early feminist, wrote a great deal about this, so being a 'tease', being flirtatious, was thought to be part of a woman's role. The language of flowers, the language of the fan, the romantic music you were taught, the dances you learned, were all part of feminine behaviour designed to 'get your man'. Bathsheba is therefore conforming to a role tht Victorian society would have placed her in before she became the owner of a farm and she does not seem to have yet realised what a powerful position she is in, compared to other women of her day. It is this dilemma which I believe Hardy is seeking to show because by 1874 times (and the law) were changing and more women were able to live independently but society still frowned upon it.
Karlstadt wrote: "Women can also have 'possession'. Countless songs have been written like the 1965 R&B song about a man loving a woman (this is from memory): 'he'll turn his back on his best friend if he puts her ..."Women could not have 'possession' in Victorian times in the sense we are writing about here. They were owned by their husbands, lock stock and barrel. Their fortunes were turned over to their husbands, divorce was extremely difficult and if they got divorced the custody of the children was given to their husband and whatever dowry they brought to the marriage remained with him. In a divorce settlement the woman, her money and possessions were described as the husband's 'goods and chattels'. The law was beginning to change by 1874, when Hardy wrote this novel, and I believe he is trying to show that a woman could become more independent but that she still faced enormous difficulties because of the attitudes of the time towards women.
One of the famous divorce cases in Hardy's time, which illustrated the plight of women, was that of Lady Caroline Norton who left her violent husband and tried to get custody of her three children. Her brave actions resulted in the Infant Custody Bill of 1839 and contributed to the Divorce Act of 1857.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/art...
Madge, your comments in message #74 definitely gave food for thought. I think also that Hardy is presenting Bathsheba as a mix of immature, vain, independent, unaware, flirtatious, etc. She was an individual personality but still operating in that society where marriage was high on the priority of the socially acceptable life. Even though referring to an earlier period, we talk about this a lot in Jane Austen group.It seems it would have been fairly normal for marriage proposals after having known a person for a short period of time. I discussed earlier that Boldwood held an esteemed place in society, so Bathsheba would not have dismissed him too quickly. And of course we see her struggle with this, but ultimately not doing very well with it. It is an interesting plot, and of course in the next discussion thread, another man comes along to complicate Bathesheba's decisions even more.
Thanks for this insight Sarah. The Jane Austen period is apposite because Hardy was actually writing about the period just after the Napoleonic wars of 1799-1815 which were still quite close to Regency mores. (There is a reference to Napoleon being on St Helena in Chapter 5, which is post 1815.) Jane Austen lived between 1775 and 1817 so there isn't much discrepancy between the period she wrote about and the period described in FFTMC. And of course many of the attitudes towards women's behaviour, courtship etc. were still much the same in Victorian times, especially in the country, where people were more 'old fashioned' and slower to change.
Yes, Madge, the time period was very close and remember that great little paragraph about how slow the area of Wessex was regarding change. I believe it is in this discussion section of the book. It was talking about several aspects of society, including dress and manner, but our thoughts here reminded me of that. I can go back and find it but I bet many of us remember that paragraph. Exactly as you said, this would have been an old-fashioned part of the country.And that reminds me too-- Wasn't it Henery who had a specific comment on Bathsheba marrying Boldwood? (I hope I am not blending into the next section thread.) Henery said why should Bathsheba, who is well set up financially with her own farm, take Boldwood off the market when potentially another young lady might need to marry him more. I really liked that part. So again, I guess it was the "community" looking at the practical side of the marriage match. Who would be best-matched according to a business standpoint? Do you find that point interesting too?
Yes, I think practicality had to be the order of the day in farming communities and Boldwood seems a much more practical 'catch' but we shall see..... As in Pride & Prejudice, we have a single man in possession of a decent income (and a farm!) who is in want of a wife!
Christopher wrote: "Well, of course she's a tease! That's what being flirtatious is all about! Again, I do not see that as a negative character trait here. "I think that's a reasonable view for a modern person, at least a Westerner. (I think even modern day people in some countries we could both name would view deliberate flirtation as a negative character trait.)
But do you think Hardy's audience would have seen it in the same light, especially for a rural woman in the 1840s? I know that the Victorians weren't as sexually prudish as their reputation, but still, I think the other characters in the story would have seen (indeed, Oak dis see) her behavior in a significantly different light. How do you think Hardy expected his readers to view Bathsheba?
Karlstadt wrote: "I agree that Baths is a 'manipulator'. However, I think that she is caught in the horns of a dilemna: she is woman in a leadership role."A role, we should perhaps remind ourselves, that she took on unexpectedly and, as another poster pointed out, without the knowledge or qualifications to carry out. Or, in my opinion, the temperament to carry out, as is shown by her treatment of Oak.
Christopher wrote: "Karlstadt wrote: "Women can also have 'possession'. Countless songs have been written like the 1965 R&B song about a man loving a woman (this is from memory): 'he'll turn his back on his best friend if he puts her ..."Maybe just me, but I haven't a flippin' clue what this means? "
I found it clear enough myself -- possession can be a two way street, not legally at the time, but certainly emotionally. It was in response, I thought, to the comment about men possessing women sexually.
MadgeUK wrote: "Women could not have 'possession' in Victorian times in the sense we are writing about here. They were owned by their husbands, lock stock and barrel. Their fortunes were turned over to their husbands,..."Well, yes and no. Women had a lot more potential legal protections than this implies. First, their money could be locked up in settlements or in trusts, a legal structure which originated around the time of the crusades which was a device designed to get around the problem of married women not being allowed to own property. But when men went off for long periods on the crusades, they needed a way for their wives to manage the property, so they invented the trust system so that women could get around the legal restriction. And women could require that some or much of their money be used to insure their husband's lives for their benefit (or their childrens'), so that if the man died first the money came back to the woman or passed to her children, in that way making sure that he money couldn't be squandered by the husband but would remain safe for her or her offspring.
There were also other ways in which women, particularly wealthy women, could work around the legal limitations.
So while married women certainly had very limited property rights, the blanket contention that they had none is not really the case. In fact, I'm right now re-reading The Last Chronicle of Barset, in which Crosbie finds out just how much a man's financial benefits of marriage can be circumscribed or, as in his case, obliterated.
MadgeUK wrote: "Marialyce wrote: "Thank you, Ami. I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw Bathsheba as you do. She is a tease whether knowing it or not (and how could she not) with three men falling at..."Marialyce, another great point... In the sort of isolated village Hardy is writing about there were few inhabitants and the manners of the time did not allow for regular mixing of the sexes, for the normal courtship which we enjoy today.
You're right, Bathsheba definitely exhibits mannerisms similar to those who suffer from isolationism...
Everyman wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Well, of course she's a tease! That's what being flirtatious is all about! Again, I do not see that as a negative character trait here. "I think that's a reasonable view for a..."
I don't think it's the flirtation that is perceived as negative, I find her motivations behind the flirtatious behavior to be negative.
In the sort of isolated village Hardy is writing about there were few inhabitants and the manners of the time did not allow for regular mixing of the sexes, for the normal courtship which we enjoy today. Except, of course, in church and church functions. Which may have provided as much opportunity for courtship relative to their lives as single bars do for some today.
MadgeUK wrote: "You are writing of a later period Everyman ..."Actually, not. I had a good grounding in property law of England, which is the origin of much American property law, from my law school property prof, who was greatly interested in, and therefore of course expected us to be greatly interested in (and of course those who wanted good grades in the course became so interested) the various mechanism by which the limits on property ownership by women were circumvented by clever lawyers. He was not only teaching us the background development of Anglo property law, but I think was hoping we would become as clever in finding loopholes in the law as the pre-Married Womens Property act lawyers had been.
This, as I said before, started in earnest at the time of the Crusades, which of course is long before the time we are concerned with her.
I have, sadly, disposed of the text which went into the background of English trust and property law in some detail or I would quote appropriate snippets of it here. But on second thought, Boof and Paula are probably quite relieved that the book is gone from my shelves and therefor not available for me to quote from.
All of Trollope's novels were published after 1836 and the Married Women's Property Act, Custody Act etc - what period do the Barsetshire Chronicles begin and end with? The Warden preceded Barchester Towers and that was based on Trollope's experiences in Salisbury in 1852, when he worked for the Post Office. Lawyers are always good at finding loopholes in the law, just as accountants are always good at finding loopholes in tax laws:(.
MadgeUK wrote: "You are writing of a later period Everyman and of comparatively wealthy women in receipt of marriage settlements drawn up under the laws of primogeniture, although they were then often under the he..."We haven't even read Trollope yet -- could you please not place Trollope plot spoilers within this discussion?
Sorry, I don't think there are any plot spoilers there except for revealing that Lily didn't get married which isn;t much of one.
It seems a plot spoiler either is or isn't. The method followed by a lot of GoodReaders is that you can include anything you want in your comment, just mark it at the top with--------------SPOILER--------------------------
I'm not trying to spoil anyone's discussion, just please don't spoil my reading. Thanks. It would be appreciated.
Sorry again. I usually do put 'spoiler', I didn't realise there was one on this occasion. Hopefully, by the time anyone has read that Trollope they will have forgotten all about it!
MadgeUK wrote: "Lawyers are always good at finding loopholes in the law,"Else why would they pay us so much?
Kathy wrote: "On the subject of women's property rights: trust funds and legal loopholes are only for the rich. "Well, yes, but it was only women of some wealth, or from families of some wealth, who needed to worry about protecting their money from their husbands. Bathsheba needed had enough property that she should have had a lawyer to advise her how to keep it out of the hands of whatever husband, if any, she wound up with (this is the Week 2 discussion so no spoilers here!). We'll see whether she did or didn't when we get to those chapters.
But generally, yes, it was only those with wealth who needed to worry about how to protect it.
People are flirtatious, let's not restrict it to one sex. Let's not restrict it too much at all if it helps the world turn a little smoother. But there's a huge difference between flirting and sending a valentine with a marriage proposal in writing! I just got to this chapter and it seems very contrived to me...it seems quite unlikely that a girl who has so far been portrayed as capable, independent, thoughtful...would play such a trick....send a valentine anonymously as a joke perhaps...but to include "Marry me"...I just don't find it credible or consistent.
Re the missing chapter: my edition (Penguin classics 2ooo)has notes on the history of the text. It begins "This text publishes for the very first time the holograph manuscript of Far From The Madding Crowd...."It explains that it differs from the serialised version published in Cornhill Magazine: "...the extraneous, two-page, 'All Saints' and All Souls' chapter(xvi)featuring Fanny's and Troy's aborted attempt at marriage is omitted. Although this insert may seem intrinsic to Hardy's original text, it was grafted on to the story on proofsheets and does not represent an extant part of the holograph manuscript." Helpfully they include it as appendix 3, so if you don't have it, check the back of your book. If it's like mine it will also explain some of the vocabulary. In short, the chapter in question was published in the original magazine serialisation, but was not in Hardy's first draft of the manuscript.
***Spoiler***I totally agree with you, Kathy. It seems to have been plunked down into the book and interrupts the flow of the novel. It does, however, provide a somewhat nicer picture of Troy and not totally make him into the evil protagonist he might become.
Fanny and he are interesting characters though don't you think. She is so trusting, so fragile, and so likable. Young and inexperienced, she for me, seems like the one to fall and be crushed. Could she be the reverse character to Bathsheba? Troy seems to be the total antithesis to her. Arrogant and haughty, he is the one that is the polar opposite character to Gabriel.
I am intrigued by her characterization. Is she the true Victorian woman? Is she really an unstated heroine typifying what so many woman have and do go through in their lives?
Again, there is such great discussion here! My copy of the novel has the missing chapter included in the test, and I think it should be included--I don't want to spoil anything that happens later for anyone who hasn't read that far, but I think the audience needs to see Troy intending to marry Fanny.
As for Bathsheba and the valentine, the actual act was thoughtless and a little reckless but it's the way she behaves toward Boldwood AFTER he reveals how he feels about it that is the problem. She won't give him an answer to his proposal for the longest time! She is leading him on. At the same time, though, she doesn't seem to be a really bad person, just a little silly where men are concerned. And I don't think you can entirely blame it on youth--I would never have done that at any age, even 19 or 20!
Did you not think it interrupted the flow, Rachel? I do agree that it does make the association between Troy and Fanny a bit more understandable. At first, I thought it might have been somewhat of a set up on Troy's part. Did he purposely tell her the incorrect church? Then I changed that train of thought.I so agree with you on saying you would never have done what Bathsheba did at 19 or 20. I, too, would never have sent a valentine with the words "marry me" on it to a somewhat older man. If it was a joke or a whim, it was a somewhat cruel one.
Rachel wrote: "...just a little silly where men are concerned....I would never have done that at any age...Isn't Bathsheba's inexperience with men the point though? Women of this time were not like we were at 19 or 20, having been able to make friends with boys from an early age and so knowing how to behave around them. There were many codes of behaviour too, things you did and didn't do. It was all a great mystery to an inexperienced young woman without a mother or friend to guide her (Liddy was a servant). Also, marriage is an important decision and so keeping a man waiting whilst you think about it is surely a good thing to do, or keeping him waiting so as to let him down gently and not refuse him straight away is quite kind. She and Liddy were only having a bit of fun in a hardworking, rather funless world.
I see Boldwood, as an older more experienced man, as being the silly one:).
I think Kathy is right about the 'missing chapter' having something to do with the serialisation of the novel and it may have been inserted at the request of Hardy's editor. The story of Fanny Robin and Troy is likely to have been quite controversial since it was of sex before marriage. The editor may have wanted it 'toned down'.
Yes, that is what I was pointing to in my messages 41 an 41 above. She is a little piqued that Boldwood hasn't noticed her, and as Chris says, she and Libby let that lead into a little fun one afternoon in sending the Valentine. Really looking at the background of Baths and Boldwood, as Madge also has pointed out, it seemed this turned into a misguided situation in many ways.
I am still having a hard time grasping the concept of fatalism in Hardy's writing. Does he mean to represent that the hand of fate causes Baths. to write and send the Valentine? It is certainly hard for me to interpret a story this way, I guess because my philosophy is so different. I see more in Hardy's writings that people are taking thoughtless or misguided turns in their lives, but of their own choice.