The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Jude the Obscure
Thomas Hardy Collection
>
Jude the Obscure: Week 5 - Part Fifth
Does anyone else think that Hardy is a little... bleak? for lack of my ability to come up with a better, more precisely accurate word.Or... anyone else read all of Hardy's other books? I would assume anyone that had might come to a similar conclusion.
Jen wrote: "Does anyone else think that Hardy is a little... bleak? for lack of my ability to come up with a better, more precisely accurate word.Or... anyone else read all of Hardy's other books? I would as..."
This is only my 2nd Hardy novel, the first being Tess, but based upon what I have read it does seem that he does tend to lean towards the bleak side of things. There are certainly others whom have dealt with the same subjects and issues he has without being quite so morose about it.
Even considering the suffering that many people may have been subjected too because of the rigid morality of society and because they were so much restrained and expected to conform to the execrations of others it seems hard to believe that someone could truly be as so utterly, hopelessly miserable as some of his characters are.
It is one of the problems I have with Hardy, though I do enjoy his writing and I really liked this book and the fact that it is bleak in itself is not a problem for me as I myself rather like dark. But the self-pitying aspect of it can be grating for me.
Though I as I said I did truly like this book, I gave it five stars, but at the same time I also jest about the fact that the entire book is just Jude wandering around going woe is me wallowing in his self-pity.
I do tend to but heads with that fatalism aspect which Hardy presents within his books, because while I acknowledge, particularly in the time in which he was writing there were not a lot of choices people had with their lives, not a lot of opportunities, and things which were out of their control, and yet at the same time my theory is even if a person cannot always control what happens to them they can choose how they react to it.
And I do believe that Jude and Sue have a choice not to be so completely miserable, unhappy, and doomed, and that they are choosing their own misery to a certain degree because it is within their capability and power to find some happiness with each other even if they are living in an imperfect world.
So on the one hand I can sympathize with the obstacles that they face and what they are up against, and the unfairness of the situation, that they should not feel pressured or forced to have to be legally married and society should not judge them if they simply choose to live together, while still being "free." And I can understand why, particularly Sue would feel such an aversion to being legally bound to Jude and her fears that such will cheapen what feelings she may have for him, or that she will feel forced to live with him on terms that go against what she wants in the relationship.
But on the other hand I cannot help but think at times that they do just enjoy feeling sorry for each other and it is just easier for them to go through life in this doom and gloom attitude.
Sue could easily be seen as one of those melodramatic personalities that actually does need that constant friction, and negative, of pitying attention in her life, and that even under more ideal circumstances she could not actually be content or happy, but would have to find some form of tragedy in her life so she can attract that sort of attention.
Jude is possibly the bleakest of his books Jen but there are others that are more life-affirming, like Under the Greenwood Tree. Hardy was trying to expose the ills of Victorian society so they are likely to be somewhat bleak. And the Victorians loved melodrama. (I've read most of them.)
Jen wrote: "Does anyone else think that Hardy is a little... bleak? for lack of my ability to come up with a better, more precisely accurate word.Or... anyone else read all of Hardy's other books? I would as..."
Jen, now this is really interesting, but I wonder if enjoyment of Hardy increases as one progresses through life. I can only speak for myself here, but I read Tess in school when I was 17 and I loathed and detested it. The descriptions of the potato farmers scratching out their meagre existence like insects on the bare face of a harsh earth and poor Tess...why would I want to read such horrible stuff. But this year I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Far from the Madding Crowd and Jude the Obscure, so I wonder if I would now enjoy Tess. What makes this difference? I have been thinking about this a lot, of late. I'm not sure if I have understood this fully, but so far the contributing factors might be:
1. I know what to expect from Hardy so I'm not so surprised/shocked by what he writes.
2.Having resided on this planet a little longer I have perhaps more understanding of loss and despair and perhaps more interest in the plight of those who find it difficult to overcome depression.
3. I can perhaps see it as an authentic portrayal of certain types of people, without being overwhelmed by the bleakness.
4. I can enjoy the brilliance of his writing and poetic use of symbolism without getting too frustrated by the darkness that seems to be all-pervading. Yes, it is bleak. That's Hardy. If he'd sailed through his life, he might not have written such great poetry and so many great books. Which could possibly be said of many a writer. All I can say is that I seem to have a completely different appreciation for Hardy now, 38 years later. It is bleak, but like a dark painting, there is beauty there, and food for thought.
Silver wrote: "But on the other hand I cannot help but think at times that they do just enjoy feeling sorry for each other and it is just easier for them to go through life in this doom and gloom attitude. "To an extent, I see this point, particularly in regards to Sue's outlook, but given society's obsessive insistence on respectability, they would have very few options available to them. If Philloston was dismissed because he gave his wife her freedom, an obviously unmarried couple with several children in tow would be that much more unacceptable. It's probably difficult for us to imagine it, but their itinerant lifestyle, particularly in a time when the house and home were practically a cult, would clearly indicate their outcast status.
Jude, Sue and their children live in the interstices of Victorian society. I doubt they have time to indulge in self-pity; they'd be too busy carving out an existence.
Jan, I think you might be right in believing that the "enjoyment of Hardy increases as one progresses through life." I remember reading Tess when I was much younger and thinking that she was stupid and whiny and well, bleak. Now that I'm older I have a lot more experience behind me and can understand the weaknesses and failings of these characters. I also notice that many women especially feel a strong dislike for Sue, that she is undecided and even cruel in her dealings with Jude. This makes sense in today's world, but I think that Hardy really loved his female characters and could sympathize with their lot in life. As a woman growing up in the 70's I know how much things have changed in the world in forty years. I can't imagine being a woman in Victorian society whose life was pretty much pre-ordained. It is easy to say now that Jude and Sue should just live together and to hell with the rest of the world, but even in 1970 that was an idea that was not met happily by much of society. Sue was ostracized and had to feel that her lot would have been better had she not made the decisions she did, even before she made them. That in itself would cause one to be wishy washy in the face of love vs. damnation and social exile.
Certainly she would have had no chance of a teaching job if she was "living in sin" as they called it right up to the seventies. So it's not just a matter of choosing how you want to live. It became everybody's business and affected your chances of employment and hence your ability to make ends meet.
As I have looked at the clips Madge has provided us and noted how deeply Hardy was honored, it has given me pause in considering the impact his work apparently had.
Jan wrote: "Certainly she would have had no chance of a teaching job if she was "living in sin" as they called it right up to the seventies. So it's not just a matter of choosing how you want to live. It became everybody's business..."we tend to cherish privacy today, to think that we can move to a new place and start a fresh life. But that's fairly recent -- there was very little privacy in Jude's day, no effective way of getting away from the decisions you made. As you note, the way Jude and Sue lived was indeed everybody's business, and everybody would have something (generally not favorable) to say about it.
To me, Jude and Sue are the male and female counterparts of eachother. Note how the names have a similar sound. Both struggle with the conflict between 'flesh and spirit'. Both are interested in education and the arts. Both have to live with the consequences of choices made at a young age. And I think this is the whole point. It's not to show that these are people who can't cope with life. What Hardy is painting a picture of is ordinary people, with internal conflicts. Surely he is showing that you can't just judge people by what you see...divorced, unwed, whatever the label. These are not horrible people. These are people who had dreams and aspirations. People who have a tender side. People who love art and architecture. Ordinary, fallible, confused, loving, emotional, caring, perplexing, good-natured, frustrated, sometimes frightened, sometimes hopeful human beings."Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I think this is what Hardy is saying to Victorian society.
But they cast their stones at him.
Whereupon he gave up writing novels.
What tomes unwrit that we will never see.
Wonderfully said Jan. One of the reasons that I love to read the books from this time period is to see not only how far we've come, but also how many things are the same. I can always see the parallels (good and bad) in the way we live today. Society still makes demands of us and we all make choices to either live within the bounds of that society, or to take a harder path. I also have to say that even though I do find much of Hardy's work sad, his writing really brings these people to life. I always feel emotionally involved with them.
Another great post Jan, another nail hit on the head!
I hope Jude readers can pick up this rather appropriate Easter e-card featuring Salisbury cathedral, which Lily kindly forwarded to me, :-http://www.jacquielawson.com/preview....
A fitting end to Part Fifth - I expect Chris, Silver or Camilla will put up Part Sixth some time today.
MadgeUK wrote: "In the UK we say about children like Old Father Time that they 'have been here before'. Is this an expression used in the US for 'old fashioned' children?"I've heard "old soul" more often, but we hear the former.
Lily wrote: "I don't have trouble with the idea that the world is what it is, including the world of communities and social pressures et al, and human lives brush up against those realities. I do have trouble with the idea that those are "out to get" someone like some malignant force, which is the "feeling" I have from Hardy's use of "fate.""I like that you saw that in Jude, Lily. Maybe that's part of what made me dislike the book so? I also have trouble with the idea that some malignant force is "out to get" us. In our read of Moby Dick those two ways of viewing the world also come into conflict, and Melville clearly thinks that your view is the saner one- Ahab is crazy because he takes the other view. Very different people, Hardy and Melville!
I don't think it is necessarily Hardy's view (although he was a known pessimist), it is just a viewpoint that he is using to put forward his story. Predestination was (is?) also a Calvinist p.o.v. which was more common at the time he was writing. Puritanism has been said to be at the root of Victorian sexual codes and Pauline doctrine, upon which Calvinism is based, emphasised woman as man's spiritual equal but as a social subordinate, and frequently associated women with the flesh and men with the spirit. These are some of the views which Hardy seems to be exploring but which, in reality, he was against. He wishes us to dislike these ideas but not the book!You might also like to listen to this BBC broadcast on Victorian pessimism which talks about the 'faltering in religious belief' which affected the late Victorians:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007d9k6
MadgeUK wrote: "You might also like to listen to this BBC broadcast on Victorian pessimism...http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007d9k6"
The last few minutes in particular address Hardy -- worth it to find the 28 min for the entire program. Thank you, Madge.
I think we need to be careful about mixing predestination, Calvinism, and Puritanism into our discussion, each of which are topics unto them selves, except as we can narrow them to be relevant to the topics at hand. (For example, predestination is one of those concepts that got caught in the bind of medievalists characterizing God as omniscient, i.e., if God is omniscient, He must "know" what is going to happen. Then, if He "knows", then certainly He must have foreordained. But then, alongside comes the concept of free will and the ensuing conundrums. Now, if one steps back, as do some modern theologians, and asks if God is truly omniscient, or at least what it means to say such, .... Although Calvin is highly linked with predestination, that is far from his only contribution to theological thought or to church administration.)
Although Calvin is highly linked with predestination, that is far from his only contribution to theological thought or to church administration.But Jude isn't 'modern' and I am trying to ascertain which bits Hardy was looking at. If you are not 'into' the theology of it, which most of us are not, then the predestination element. the fatalism, is what is most striking. It isn't what we think here or what Calvin's contribution to theological thought is, it is what the author has his characters thinking and how the Victorians might have interpreted it from their pessimistic, post Darwinian, post Nietzche p.o.v..
Both Calvin and Luther argued that 'God takes the initiative to save by arbitrarily selecting certain people for salvation, and relegating the rest to damnation. Only those who have been elected for salvation can be converted. Salvation is not available or possible to all.' It seems to me that neither Jude nor Sue have a belief in their own salvation, that they (via the author) consider themselves damned by the 'malignant forces' mentioned in the broadcast on pessimism.
MadgeUK wrote: "Both Calvin and Luther argued that 'God takes the initiative to save by arbitrarily selecting certain people for salvation, and relegating the rest to damnation. Only those who have been elected for salvation can be converted. Salvation is not available or possible to all.'"Who are you quoting, because Calvin states a theology that who is "saved" is up to God? (Granted, he didn't think that was everybody.)
Philosopher/Mathematician Bertrand Russell in The Free Man's Worship. In Institution Chretienne Calvin also wrote something else pertinent to the pessimism of Jude: 'No matter where we look, high or low, we can see only a curse that, spreading over all creatures and embracing the earth and the sky, ought to burden our souls with horrible despair' and that 'We are all made of mud and this mud is not just on the hem of our gown, or on the soles of our boots, on in our shoes. We are full of it, we are nothing but mud and filth both inside and out.' He was a cheerful soul!
Mod
I agree with Hesper. I don't really see bleakness and gloom. I see people dealing with what life throws at them even when they may not agree or fit in with their society. I've read a couple of Hardy before, and I've never thought about bleakness before it was mentioned here. I've always just seen the strength of the individual against adversity. Maybe I'm an incurable optimist.
Deborah wrote: "I've read a couple of Hardy before, and I've never thought about bleakness before it was mentioned here. I've always just seen the strength of the individual against adversity. Maybe I'm an incurable optimist. "I don't see the blackness either, but I also don't see in every case the strength of the individual against adversity. Mentions an incident from Book 6: (view spoiler) I'm not sure that I would interpret
Sorry - edit - hit the post instead of preview button:
I'm not sure that I would interpret Jude's response to his rejection by the university so much as strength as I would describe it as resignation. People really only have two choices in the face of adversity, don't they? Totally give up and either go into serious depression or commit suicide, or make the best of the situation in the best way they find themselves able to. Some people, I think either by benefit of circumstance or strength of character or a combination of both, are able to do a better job of the going on, but really, in most cases, particularly with Hardy, it seems to me that it's mostly a matter of keeping on keeping on because that's really the only choice other than despair.
Mod
Deborah wrote: I've read a couple of Hardy before, and I've never thought about bleakness before it was mentioned here. I've always just seen the strength of the individual against adversity. Maybe I'm an incurable optimist...."I have to say for me in the case of Jude and Sue I do not see them as being truly strong individuals who are showing strength in the face of their adversity. But rather though, I do like Sue, and I can understand the struggles and hardships they are facing and the unfairness they are up against, but in truth it does not seem as if they are actually "dealing" with the difficulties which life throws at them nor do they accept the fact that they don't fit in with society and they are not really actively struggling against the adversity, they are simply feeling sorry for themselves because of the unfairness of the world.
Silver wrote: "...they are not really actively struggling against the adversity, they are simply feeling sorry for themselves because of the unfairness of the world...."I have similar reactions, Silver. One thing I will acknowledge, they don't have a lot of resources, either of their own or from any extended network of family or community, with which to struggle against the adversity.
Lily wrote: I have similar reactions, Silver. One thing I will acknowledge, they don't have a lot of resources, either of their own or from any extended network of family or community, with which to struggle against the adversity. , ..."I acknowledge that, but it is my belief that it is within their power to find happiness with each other in spite of the adversity they are up against. I do not deny that they have a difficult life and not a lot of options to improve their situation, but I do not think this means they have to be so miserable.
They cannot help the conditions in which they live in, but I think there are other people who are living in very poor conditions whom still find ways to find some happiness for themselves.
I think their feelings of complete despair are to some degree their own making and own choosing. And I am speaking here purely of their emotional responses to their situation, not physical conditions in which they are living in.
Mod
Silver wrote: I acknowledge that, but it is my belief that it is within their power to find happiness with each other in spite of the adversity they are up against. I do not deny that they have a difficult life and not a lot of options to improve their situation, but I do not think this means they have to be so miserable. "That is a very Senecan (and Boethian) philosophy. You cannot control what Lady Fortune decides to mete out to you, but you have total control over how you choose to respond to it.
Silver wrote: "They cannot help the conditions in which they live in, but I think there are other people who are living in very poor conditions whom still find ways to find some happiness for themselves. "Hmmm. I recall being excoriated for putting forth this very idea a few months ago. I hope you get kindlier treatment!
Everyman wrote: That is a very Senecan (and Boethian) philosophy. You cannot control what Lady Fortune decides to mete out to you, but you have total control over how you choose to respond to it."Yes that is my basic philosophy in life. I believe that a person always has some degree of choice, and even if there are psychical forces they cannot control, it is within their power to choose how they react to those circumstances.
Deborah wrote: "I guess I'm missing something because what I see is people faced with adversity who keep trying to make a life. They aren't accepted, they move. They decide they are right for each other, they fl..."While it is true that they do all of those things, they do them with this woe is me attitude it seems.
In way they do confirm societies view of them, by Sue's persistent belief that they are fated to be doomed because of the way in which they live their lives.
Yet on the other hand, she cannot bring herself to marry Jude because she believes if they are married, than they will be doomed because the marriage contract will alter their feelings for each other.
Silver wrote: "...I believe that a person always has some degree of choice, and even if there are psychical forces they cannot control, it is within their power to choose how they react to those circumstances. ..."I don't think this viewpoint takes into consideration the effect upon mental health that constant 'grinding down' can have, or if people have mental health problems in the first place. Sue, for instance, seems to show signs of clinical depression and 'depression' is mentioned several times in relation to Jude too. We also know that Hardy suffered from bouts of depression and this may have affected the way he wrote about the characters in Jude, particularly as he was depressed for part of the time when writing it.
I tend to agree with Deborah that Sue and Jude keep dusting themselves off and starting all over again after expressing their upset at their disappointments, so did not wallow in self pity. Nevertheless, the novel does have an underlying pessimism and that I think was how Hardy was feeling in himself and perhaps how the late Victorian mood was overall.
There is also a lack of stoicism in their behaviour in that they express themselves forcibly about the setbacks they have suffered. There is no British stiff upper lip here - that came with WWI:(.
While I have feelings of great irritation with Sue and Jude at times as I read this, alternating with attempts to feel empathy--sometimes succeeding, I do have to stand in awe of Hardy's masterful portrayal of them. Not everyone is able to be as the man President Bush describes in his memoir -- the man was standing on the foundation of his demolished home after Katrina, and spoke not of his losses, but that he and his mother were alive. (I was listening to the Katrina segment this morning.)I see the news has another sad story of an abandoned car in New Hampshire this morning with the search on for the 20 year-old mother of the daughter inside. In this case, an abduction is the current theory.
MadgeUK wrote: "I don't think this viewpoint takes into consideration the effect upon mental health that constant 'grinding down' can have, or if people have mental health problems in the first place. "That's a very complex subject involving organic mental illness (such as Down's Syndrome) and mental health which is a result of responses to one's environment, far too complex to get into here.
But wrt Jude, I don't see that either Jude or Sue have organic mental health issues, so Sliver's point is a fair one, that any issues they have are a result of how they have responded to the circumstances which have faced them. I don't see Sue as clinically depressed, though she does have a heavy dose of discouragement. One can either be accepting of and sympathetic to this, even enabling, or one can tell her to make the decision to shape up, pull herself up, and get on with life.
That's a very complex subject involving organic mental illness (such as Down's Syndrome) and mental health which is a result of responses to one's environment, far too complex to get into here.As someone who suffered badly with clinical depression for many years, who was hospitalised and received long term psychotherapy for it, I was speaking from experience. Sue shows signs of such and Hardy is thought to have suffered with it (cf Bryant, Klein, Pite and others). Suicide and/or attempted suicide, wondering about death, dwelling on death (which we see in Jude) are also signs of clinical depression.
http://uhs.berkeley.edu/lookforthesig...
(Down's syndrome is not a mental illness, it is a chromosomal medical condition which can affect cognitive ability. http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_...)
Lily wrote: While I have feelings of great irritation with Sue and Jude at times as I read this, alternating with attempts to feel empathy...This is one of the problems faced by those who suffer with depression. It is easier for people to empathise with, say, the pain of a broken limb but less easy for them to empathise with mental anguish. While 'pull yourself together' is a frequent (and insensitive) response to depression, it is not the response people get when they have a medical condition. I could have no more pulled myself out of depression years ago than I could pull out my cataracts today:(.
MadgeUK wrote: "While 'pull yourself together' is a frequent (and insensitive) response to depression, it is not the response people get when they have a medical condition."But the basic principle is similar -- that one cannot control a situation, but can control one's responses to it. My mother-in-law, who lives with us, suffers severely from arthritis, osteoporosis (she breaks two bones on average each year), and other medical conditions. She cannot control those. But her will is indomitable. She refuses to allow those conditions to control her life. She remains cheerful and positive despite being in almost constant pain. It would be easy for her to fall into despair or depression over her problems, but she refuses to do that.
I am trying to deal with my deteriorating vision in the same spirit. Of course, I seek whatever medical aid is available, and am grateful for the (somewhat limited) relief available from modern medical technology. But I still have to decide how I will react to the condition, whether I will complain and moan over how cruel fate is to me, to get depressed over living with beloved books that I am now able to read only with a magnifying glass, or whether I will accept that this is what my life is today and determine to make the best life I can out of the conditions that I am given.
This is the same choice that Jude and Sue have. How well or how badly we consider that they are dealing with the "hand that life has dealt them" is a question worth our discussing. Whether they have the choice at all to decide how to deal with their situation is, for me at least, a given.
The principle is not similar because the conditions you describe are physical, not mental. If your mental thought processes are impaired because of depression or similar mental conditions you do not have any control over what you 'allow', 'control', 'react to' or 'refuse to do'. I too can cope with physical pain and have a high tolerance level for it. Mental illness is a different kettle of fish altogether. You are not talking about clinical depression here, just straightforward depression, which is an altogether different thing and is what I now sometimes suffer from - quite, quite different to my earlier debilitating mental illness. Unless someone has been diagnosed with clinical depression and has been in the incapacitating depths of it they cannot empathise/sympathise/understand it - unless they are a psychiatrist or another sufferer. However, I do not wish to discuss this further because it brings back memories of very unhappy times, when my children had to be put into care - that's how bad clinical depression can be! And in any case you and I have discussed this previously to no avail.
(You know that I have every sympathy with your eye problems and can, to some extent, understand, because I have been very worried about my own eyesight recently. It would be a 'fate worse than death' to be unable to read and I cannot envisage such a life. My mother suffered a number of illnesses in her later years but nothing upset her more than the near loss of her eyesight and her increasing inability to read, which now haunts me - and you:(:(.)
At the beginning of Part Six Chapter II Hardy writes of Sue:'Vague and quaint imaginings had haunted Sue in the days when her intellect scintillated like a star, that the world resembled a stanza or melody composed in a dream; it was wonderfully excellent to the half-aroused intelligence, but hopelessly absurd at the full waking; that the first cause worked automatically like a somnambulist, and not reflectively like a sage; that at the framing of the terrestrial conditions there seemed never to have been contemplated such a development of emotional perceptiveness among the creatures subject to those conditions as that reached by thinking and educated humanity.'
This somnambulistic experience is common in extreme depression - a feeling of other worldliness and of seeing everything in either very bright colours or very dull ones (the 'black dog'). Religious thoughts are also common, like Sue's: 'We must conform!" she said mournfully. "All the ancient wrath of the Power above us has been vented upon us. His poor creatures, and we must submit. There is no choice. We must. It is no use fighting against God!" I met a number of people when I was in hospital who had such thoughts and hallucinations when in the throes of clinical or bi-polar depression. I did not have religious thoughts (as you would expect!) but I did experience the 'other worldliness' and became 'emotionally perceptive' of the sounds, colours and smells of the world around me. I became particularly appreciative of classical music at that time, almost addicted to it, and it eventually proved to be great therapy.
Chapter V continues the somnambulist theme: 'Unlike a woman in ordinary, whose eye is so keen for material things, Sue seemed to see nothing of the room they were in, or any detail of her environment.' Sue also acts very irrationally and erratically as when she insists on marrying Phillotson again and later tears her nightdress, throwing it on the fire. She also loses weight, another common symptom.
It is in paragraphs like these that I seem to recognise clinical depression and Hardy describes the condition wonderfully well, I feel he empathises with it.
MadgeUK wrote: "'We must conform!" she said mournfully. "All the ancient wrath of the Power above us has been vented upon us. His poor creatures, and we must submit. There is no choice. We must. It is no use fighting against God!" "Interestingly, in a few weeks the Western Canon group will be reading Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy, written in 524 and one of the most influential books in Western intellectual thought for well over 1,000 years, which will address this very issue. We may also dip into Seneca and Plato, since Boethius drew on the thought of both these philosophers and their investigations into why bad things happen to good people, why if God is all good there is evil in the world, and what one can do about it. They propose that while as Sue says, one may not be able to fight against God, one can, as Job demonstrates, decide how one will respond to bad things happening to one. If anyone had a reason to fall into depression, Seneca and Boethius, both men once at the pinnacle of power, wealth, and influence who were falsely accused of treason, stripped of their wealth and power, imprisoned, and eventually executed, and Socrates, who though without official power or wealth to be stripped of was also falsely accused of treason and impiety and also condemned, imprisoned, and eventually executed, certainly had such reasons. And Job was another who faced the most terrible calamities which could be inflicted on him. Yet all these men demonstrated what Rufus Fears calls "unconquerable human spirit," teaching in their lives and deaths, as Fears writes of Seneca, that "no good person ever truly suffers evil as long as he believes that God designs all things for a greater good."
Was the spirit and wisdom of Seneca, Boethius, Socrates, and their many successors in life truly available to Jude and Sue of they had chosen to follow that wisdom? Or are there people, and are Jude and Sue of their number, who are incapable of understanding and following this teaching?
Surely both Jude and Sue had read and were very familiar with the Book of Job; as one aspiring to the ministry Jude in particular must have been very familiar with the book. One has to ask, why was the lesson of Job apparently closed to them?
Mod
Lily - It is all a matter of how we perceive what is happening to us. We can mourn the loss of the house (Katrina) or we can celebrate that we are safe. I've had to do this a lot in my life, and had somebody ask me yesterday how I did this. I told them I choose to see the positive in any situation and pick up the pieces. It just takes a little practice and a minute to remember that you could be that missing daughter or the mother of the missing daughter.
Mod
As..."
Madge - You are correct that Down's Syndrome is not a mental illness. A great book to read about it was written by Martha Beck called Having Adam. Adam has Down Syndrome and was born into a family known for being extremely intellectual and intelligent. Adam has taught them that while he has limitations, he lives his life filled with immense joy every day. There are fair worse things than being able to do that.
With regard to other mental illness, there are many who suffer. Grinding down can trigger things in people. Some people have the capability of dusting themselves off and moving forward. Even some of those same people can reach a point where they can no longer do that, and need help to move forward. In my opinion, mental illness is like any other illness one may have and should not be stigmatized as something else.
Mod
But the basic principl..."
I don't know if everybody is aware of this, but clinical depression usually has a physical component that the person cannot control. Science has recently shown that there is actual a chemical imbalance in the brain of somebody suffering from depression. That person can no more control that imbalance than I can control having 20/400 vision, or thyroid disease, or degenerative joint disease in my ankle, or scoliosis in my back.
Deborah wrote: "That person can no more control that imbalance than I can control having 20/400 vision, or thyroid disease, or degenerative joint disease in my ankle, or scoliosis in my back. "That's information worth knowing, Deborah. But while the situations you cite -- 20/400 vision, or thyroid disease, or degenerative joint disease, or scoliosis -- may be beyond a person's control, isn't the person able to control hos whey react to and deal with those conditions? That's at least been my experience.
That's really what I'm talking about with Jude and Sue -- not that they undergo challenging situations which to a certain degree are beyond their control, but how they are choosing to deal with those, whether with resignation, with acceptance and proceeding with the best possible life despite their situations, or otherwise.
Do we believe -- indeed, does Hardy seem to believe -- that Jude and Sue had the possibility of other ways of responding to their situation> Or do we believe that their characters were such that the situations were so overwhelming that they really had no possible alternatives?
...isn't the person able to control hos whey react to and deal with those conditions?NOT if it is a mental illness like depression, NO control whatsoever. Your brain/mind/thoughts are out of control, you cannot 'deal' with anything in a proper manner. Please try to understand this.
If Hardy meant to portray Jude and Sue in the throes of depression then at times, as he shows, they had no alternatives and would lurch, as Sue frequently does, from one irrational act to another, one irrational thought to another. Both Jude and Sue are portrayed as being suicidal, another symptom. (Look at the text.) Which is why, in the end, nothing works and their lives go into a downward spiral - which is what happens to many depressives if they are not helped by the medical profession.
If anyone had a reason to fall into depression, Seneca and Boethius, both men once at the pinnacle of power, wealth, and influence who were falsely accused of treason, stripped of their wealth and power, imprisoned, and eventually executed, and Socrates............etc etc,
This is not applicable at all. People with clinical depression do NOT 'fall into it'! It comes upon them like a contagious disease, like a 'black dog' coming to sit upon them, as Churchill expressed it. For no apparent reason whatsoever. Being brave in the face of adversity, like all the cases you cite is NOT a possible reaction for a depressive. They are not ill because of unhappy things which happen to them, they are ill because they are ill! Sometimes, as Deborah pointed out, things 'trigger' the illness, just as schizophrenia is often triggered in young men when they go to university. There is no rhyme or reason to it although hereditary factors can play a part.
...and are Jude and Sue of their number, who are incapable of understanding and following this teaching?
If Hardy is portraying them in the throes of depression, yes they are incapable. In any case, depression apart, if everyone was capable of having an 'unconquerable human spirit' then the world would have far more such heroes/no heroines. And if 'no good person ever truly suffers evil as long as he believes that God designs all things for a greater good' how is it that six million suffered such evil, together with millions of other believers in other evil situations? Did none of them believe that God designs all things etc...'?
You are, in any case, confusing depression or 'the blues' with a clinical condition, which is no more controllable, except sometimes by drugs, than the onset of your bad eyesight, or your m-i-l's osteoporosis . Even Electro Convulsive Therapy (which I also had) only has a temporary effect - and many other side effects:(.
Mod
Bipolar (her mom is bipolar) is often genetically related. Autism - they have no clue what creates that and the individuals that suffer from that experience sensory overload in many instances.
In my opinion, sometimes people can control their reactions and pick themselves up. Sometimes they just can't due to illnesses that we are only just beginning to understand.
So now we're Sue and Jude, we already don't fit the norm in society, we may be struggling with something called clinical depression that they most likely (haven't done the research on this) can't even name. They are already working class and not allowed through societal obstacles to progress to their potential or interests.
I've had a lot of adversity in my life, but I'm not sure I could handle all of that.
MadgeUK wrote: "People with clinical depression do NOT 'fall into it'!"Yes, I understand that this is your understanding and experience of it. Others may experience it differently. And what is more important to reading Jude is how Hardy understood and viewed the matter.
Others may experience it differently.Please read something authoritative about this medical condition Everyman. I am not talking about ordinary depression, sometimes called reactive depression, which is what you keep referencing. I was treated for clinical depression (formerly called endogenous) for around 15 years, in and out of hospitals and clinics so met many sufferers, and I have subsequently read a great deal about it. The clinical terms may, of course, be different in the US.
I agree that we should try to understand 'how Hardy understood and viewed the matter' which is what I have been trying to do after closely reading some of the 'bleak' parts of the novel and having read a number of biographies which mention his own pessimism and bouts of depression whilst writing Jude, which Hardy himself details in his diaries and Notebooks.
If we think mental illness is misunderstood today, which it is, imagine what it would be like for Jude and Sue?Deborah - I am going to answer this in Part Sixth because this discussion on depression particularly appertains to the final chapters.
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
Fate, Time, and Language: An Essay on Free Will (other topics)Jude the Obscure (other topics)
I suspect there are many things in Hardy's writings which we modern readers do not get - we need a Time Transporter!