Tess of the D’Urbervilles
discussion
Who do you think is most responsible for the fate of Tess?
Society destroyed Tess with it's hypocrisy and double-standards. Sexism destroyed Tess.
What is meant by "responsibility"? By "fate"?While I agree with Hardy's subtitle ("A Pure Woman"), Tess did commit murder.
I consider Tess high among the most tragic tales I have read. Heritage, poverty, education, family, religion, individuals, Alex, Angel Claire, his parents, society, sexism, law, ... who or what is innocent?
That's a complicated question, but I'm going to have to say (excepting of course the responsibility for the murder, as we are all accountable for our own actions) her parents are most responsible for her fate. Tess was pushed so far by more than Angel, or even Alec. In all likelihood she wouldn't have gone to Tabothay's and met Angel had she not been trying to escape the stain Alec made of her life, and Alec would never have been known to her if her parents hadn't insisted she go to the D'Urbervilles. They sent her as a sheep among wolves. Tess was a simple country girl with no experience of men and still they sent her. As she is leaving her parents' home for the first time (they have already seen Alec 'afire' with love for Tess) her Mother expresses concern that she should have looked into Alec D 'Urberville to see if he's 'goodhearted' before sending Tess with him, but consoles herself by saying that Tess 'ought to make her way with 'en, if she play her trump card (her face) aright. And if her don't marry her afore he will after.' How shameful! What kind of parents try to cash in on their sixteen year old daughter? Remember that her Dad didn't work, both parents drank, and she had several siblings. They rely on her. They rely on what Alec will give them in her name, they rely on what she gets from Angel. Don't get me wrong, I also think Alec and Angel have their hands deep in the mess. Alec deceived her, without that there is no tragedy, and Angel's reactions are deplorable. I don't think anything but his cowardice and utter rejection could have pushed Tess over the edge, but her parent's actions are by far the most disgraceful.
A agree with all the comments. I always felt Tess, even taking into account all the black marks against her, was ultimately responsible for her own fate. Her parents started her along the path to tragedy. My reaction to Tess was more frustration than sympathy.
What about the sexism in the society? Why weren't the men held responsible for their actions?
Sexism was rampant in that day and age. Women were seen as mere chattel, and pretty much got what they deserved. Tess was solely responsible for her outcomes, but at least she should have gotten help with her sickly child. And being the oldest of the family, and the parents finding out that they are related to D'Ubervilles who were royalty, they tried to cash in with Tess as the reward money.
Hi Robin, I agree that the time period that produced this book was highly sexist and very unfair to women, but I can't agree that this book is a reflection of that time. I think it's more of a critique. Tess is a good person, and ultimately, even after committing murder worries more about her immortal soul than the impending death sentence she knows awaits her. If Hardy was as sexist as the times would make him be he wouldn't have given us this protagonist. We should read a Becky Sharpe instead. Think about what Tess asks from Angel Claire, who is very aware of his hand in this girl's downfall, as she awaits to be arrested, "marry and take care of my sister" who is the innocent Tess he wanted in the first place. Angel loved Tess, but only as this perfect creature who had no past and no "sin" to her credit. She easily forgave him for shacking up with an older married woman for three days, and he can't forgive her for being raped? Even tries to drown her in his sleep? I can't agree that Hardy is playing by the sexist rules of his time. He's challenging them.
Okay, but look it at this way. Tess was an ideal of the purest virginal girl an ideal in his own mind. When he found out she was otherwise, he dropped her, and when Tess wanted Angel to respond to her letters, while he was ill, she took up with Alec again, he duping her into believing that she wouldn't hear from Angel again. So in a way, it is still making the man the saviour to Tess and her family because the men did have the income and the livelihood that she was willing to overlook that she went back with her rapist. Tess kills in order to get Angel Claire back into her life.
I have a copy of the novel which has various critical interpretations at the end. A feminist interpretation would be very different from a Marxist one. I think one could argue that Tess's fate was predetermined and there was no way she could have not come to a tragic end. Annemarie is that Hardy was criticizing the time and its mores. We find that double standard in the Islamic world where a woman is blamed for being raped. Honor killing is about the men's honor not the woman's.
I don't think Tess's fate was sealed. Due to her poverty in childhood, her parents set her on this path, because they wanted for her a better life, not knowing what kind of monster Alec was in seducing a 16 year old, while she was sleeping, that is despicable, When she meets up again with Angel Claire, it seems everything is turning out right, but she has a past and wants to come clean with Angel in that regard, but there in lies the double standard, he slept with someone knowingly and that is good for him to confess, but when her confession lead to rape, the birth of the child and the death of this child, the burden should have been shouldered by Alec, but she never told him so she could have gotten medicine for the child's breathing problems, it just galls me that in this story once Tess got her happiness it was short-lived, because of the killing of her rapist, which she should have reported him, but in those days, would they have listened, probably not. So Alec is to blame for his own fate, since he lied to Tess continually to get what he wanted, and she got a miserable life with him but her mother got a better life for herself, and her children. Intriguing book and discussion.
But this is a naturalistic novel. In naturalism either society or fate is the antagonist. I do love the last lines: "And the gods having had their sport with Tess...."I think Hardy is using gods in an ironic sense here.Deities do not exist in a naturalistic world or in our modern world e.g. the shootings in Norway.
Robin you are right to point out that a rape wasn't really a reported crime in the setting of this novel. Rape was a crime, but much like today, it's a very hard to prosecute crime.Ultimately, and this is a marxist reading I'm using (good catch David!) what Hardy is asking is was the treatment of Tess by society (and a male dominated society at that, let's not forget the conversation between her former milk-maid friend and Angel as he looks for Tess!) was fair or appropriate. I'm not saying as a charaacter in a story Tess has no controll over her life and actions, of course she does. But she is just as much a pawn of the society she lives in as we are. People are influenced by their surroundings and the society that they find there. This is actually one of those great early novels that begs the question: which is stronger sociology or psychology?
David wrote: "But this is a naturalistic novel. In naturalism either society or fate is the antagonist. I do love the last lines: "And the gods having had their sport with Tess...."I think Hardy is using gods in..."David, good point. By using gods, and in my edition the word is lowercased, he's mocking the systems of government and society. who are these "gods" the upper class? the bosses? the labour union? Maybe all of them?
I agree with you, Annemarie. Hardy was mocking the people who ran society at the time for their hypocrisy and prejudices. I always liked the naturalistic novels such as "The Jungle"and "The Hairy Ape." I always felt sorry for Tess who was a victim of circumstances and society's double standard.
I didn't know their was a differing viewing whether Marxist interpretation or feminist viewpoint. I guess I have to re read the book, since I have surely missed some key facts from the book.
Robin there are many ways to analyze a literary work including deconstruction. Another approach is using reader response theory. Each reader constructs his or her own meaning depending on his/her experiences, education, culture, etc.
That was what I was trying to do by way of my responses to this thread. I merely was just stating who was to blame for Tess's outcome.
Tess was an innocent. Hardy's intention was to highlight the double standard that society created.
Yes Tess certainly an innocent. He, Thomas Hardy did a masterful job in conveying the different working classes of the time as well.
There's really no right or wrong way to read a book. Just differing lenses to look at the book through. It's about finding the textual evidence to support the argument behind what you are theorizing. You could say that "Tess is completely responsible for her actions" but where the proof should start is the scene where she refuses to ask one of the town's young men (the guys who liked her BTW, but she was a little standoffish with) to drive her father's beehives to town to sell. If not for that one small action the chain of events that becomes the book would not occur. Then look at her reasons why (psycho-analytic lens). Why would she refuse to ask one of the boys to drive this item to town? Was she ashamed to admit her father was drunk? Was she embarrassed to be indebted to one of the young man? Was there something snobby about her in that she felt superior to the others in town? And can it all be tied back to the fact that Angel didn't ask her to dance and she was miffed at that?Using lenses to analyze a book gives you a stronger argument and a focus on what to say and how to analyze the text.
For the record, Alec D'Urberville is not evil as they paint him, he is simply amoral. By our feminist standards of the 21st century perhaps he is a bit harsh, but I thought it was really sexy and manly that he did not hesitate to take what he wanted (hee hee), when he wanted. That is one of the hottest scenes from the book. Tess was just confused by her society's standards, and she is a prisoner of her own opinion. I understand her. It seems to me that she really did feel attracted to Alec because while she didn't exactly say yes out of modesty, she didn't say no; having premarital sex, however, was against the common beliefs and morality of her time, and therefore she felt guilty. That, I think, explains the disgust she later felt for him and why she pushed him away. The narrator doesn't explain that, but if this were a true story, that may be a very likely cause.As far as Angel Clare is concerned-- pshaw! He's such a self-righteous judgmental pansy. Even though Tess claims she loved him, I think she only loved the fact that he fit her current society's idea of "goodness." Given that one of the most prominent themes in the novel is society as a prison, it is very likely that this interpretation is accurate and perhaps Hardy's subconsciously intended hidden message.
An interesting aspect of the novel for me is how the language reflects the novel's themes. On the one hand we have archaic and ponderous sentences, employing terms such as Old Luminary (for which Hardy is often accused of writing purple prose) - and on the other a comparatively lighter, much easier-to-read, modern prose. Both styles are mixed together in the same passages, and serve to illustrate how wide apart and different are the worlds of Tess and Alec, ancient landed and poor versus nouveau-rich and shallow. The strawberry scene is a particularly good example of where this style is used. In an audio rendition, two narrators could be used to illustrate the effect, reading alternate sentences. Tess' relationship with Alec is more complicated than that of a victim. We should note that she doesn't immediately go home after her seduction - it seems considerable time passes. And Alec, much later on, displays genuine feelings towards her. He seems to undergo a religious conversion. Once he has 'rescued' Tess, for the second time, he installs her as his mistress in a way that at least he recognises as adhering to a social convention.
But the worlds occupied by Tess and Alec do not mix well - any more than the two styles of text - and mechanical and naturalistic forces eventually overwhelm both of them. The balancing out of their fates suggests neither is more responsible than the other, after all both of them have followed the inevitable demands of their own characters. So we can't simply conclude that the new world will overcome the old, that trains and farm machines will foretell an easy easy transition from one way of life into another.
I am still puzzled why Angel is left with Tess' sister, it has hints of an Old Testament story about it - and contrasts with the Greek tragic elements of Tess' own ending.
I can't think there are any reasonable men even Tess's father or maybe it was her mother that thought it would be better for Tess to go and be taken in by Alec. But that was the D'Urbeyville's downfall thinking that a relation would be better than staying at home and watching her siblings.
Liz wrote: "That's a very interesting point... I never noticed it before. I must re-read it now! Personally, I rather like the way Angel is left with Tess' sister. Lisa-Lu becomes like the embodiment of Tess, ..."I think I meant it has resonances with the Old Testament, in particular the story of Rachel. Hardy's intention may have been to invest his rural tragedy with greater significance than the subject matter would at first seem to convey. The balance of Old Testament story, ancient Greek myth seems deliberate.
Barbara wrote: "A agree with all the comments. I always felt Tess, even taking into account all the black marks against her, was ultimately responsible for her own fate. Her parents started her along the path to ..."I agree that it was very frustrating to see how Tess handled herself along the way. i kept wanting to shout when Tess was about to do something detrimental. I think that Mr Durbeyfield (Tess' Father) is up there is who to blame, as he was a greedy man who thought the world owed him something. If not for that greed then perhaps Tess would never have travelled and encountered Alec D'Urberville. But then we wouldnt have had such a great story to read, however frustrating....
I think we cannot judge her fairly. There is just enough detail to make us think we know who is right and who is wrong and yet the details are vague in just the right places to make it impossible to fairly judge. Hardy is a masterful writer because of his ability to capture the complicated nature of human choices without acting like God and explaining everything to the reader. I take from it the lesson that it is best to forego judging others for their choices as their motives and circumstances are often hidden from view.
I hated this story. Tess was victimized almost throughout the novel's entirety and forced to reap all of the consequences. The one time she stood up for herself ended in her death (though, admittedly, she could have gone about it differently and less...mortally). Society was the strongest determinant of Tess's fate, which was what I felt that Hardy was getting at. Women were completely limited by their sex. They were responsible because of their sex. They were at fault because of their sex. It really irritated the feminist side of me.
Both society and Angel Clair... Howver she was a bit of a nutter by the end of it.
How could some one come out unscathed by all that she had to endure, whether good or bad. Sometimes this is what happens in life.
Wouldn't it be Alec? If he hadn't raped her, she could have gotten married to Angel, and no one would have ever known what a dirty hypocrite he was. If we're talking AFTER the rape, I think her parents are pretty culpable, and Angel, too of course. I know Hardy's point is that society was against her, but truly this book was absurd in the extent of the terrible things that happened to this one poor girl. I mean, I'm a pretty big fan of everything else I've read by Hardy, but one of the things people say in defense of this book is that Hardy was being realistic. I actually find it far less believable that so very many bad things would happen to one person than if only a couple of bad things had happened. I mean, everyone has bad days, but this is just ridiculous.
I guess Hardy was trying to show the downfall of one person and the choices that she made or what was thrusted on her. I think just her circumstances in life is what was her eventual downfall. I guess her being the oldest in the family, her parents wanted what they thought was best for her, but Alec turned out to be a scoundrel, and just took advantage of Tess and her naivety.
My favorite. Hardy used exquisite style to pronounce social commentary in the form of this distastefully tragic tale, so scandalous that this piece was--for all intents and purposes--banned. His writing was as beautiful as the story was troublesome, making the reading disturbingly delightful. Paradox of great writing.
Have you though on her parents?, they let their supposedly heritage go to their heads that they started on thinking on foolish things where Tess was playing a role for their ascense in society.
Robin wrote: "I guess Hardy was trying to show the downfall of one person and the choices that she made or what was thrusted on her. I think just her circumstances in life is what was her eventual downfall. I ..."Heather wrote: "Wouldn't it be Alec? If he hadn't raped her, she could have gotten married to Angel, and no one would have ever known what a dirty hypocrite he was. If we're talking AFTER the rape, I think her pa..."
It's pretty funny, but your comments make me think in how my mother has messed up with my life because she thinks she knows best. She wanted an idiot to be my partner and wanted me to continue with things I have hated and if I don't follow what she wants, she becomes neurotic and transtmits her frustration.
I think her mother in a way with her obsession of marrying Tess to a gentleman, Tess's obvious naivity and Alec in a way. What sort of mother sends her daughter off to a stranger's house without giving at least a piece of advice? Angel was a hypocrite,but I don't think he's to blame by anything since some of what happened when he left were Tess's choices, even if she was making them due to her own despair.
Susana wrote: "I think her mother in a way with her obsession of marrying Tess to a gentleman, Tess's obvious naivity and Alec in a way. What sort of mother sends her daughter off to a stranger's house without gi..."I agree with you about her mother, add also that she didn't send someone with her daugther to protect her (Rule No 1 of Parents when their daugthers go to a strange place).
About Tess choice, do you mean when she revealed Angel about her misfortune?, in that case, neither Tess nor Angel were to be blamed. Nevertheless, I also accept that Angel was a hypocrite.
The next example is light but I hope to give my point. Think in a girl who had a boyfriend in High School, they are in love, they kiss, they become one, etc, etc. However, the relationship finished because it went dull or bad. Time passes, and she finds another guy who can be the one.
Normally one looks for honesty in a relationship, on both ways. If the second relationship goes deeper, could the right thing be that she tells him that she was with another guy before?
The answer to this question depends on oneself in the end.
The problem is that the society back then wasn't very easy on a woman with Tess's past and that's what her naivity didn't accomplish. She though by telling Angel they'd be free of secrets and keen to accept one another.I think her worst choice was listening to her parents the way she did. And the end of the book was one that sealed her fate.
I pitty Tess, because she was the only character I actually cared for and was completely mistreated.
Susana wrote: "The problem is that the society back then wasn't very easy on a woman with Tess's past and that's what her naivity didn't accomplish. She though by telling Angel they'd be free of secrets and keen ..."I understand, but also there is a moment where our own "open-minded" and "progressive" society can become like in the past. One can see in the news and in one's environment that these type of things still happen.
If that happens, it will be like with Angel: despite having the real commitment of progressing, to be more tolerant and caring for the ones who are unfortunate, they rejected them, isolated them because they don't want "bad and undesirable" people in their circle.
This also proves that blood is thicker than water, that no matter how evolve or different are or we want to be from our parents, grandparents, etc, it will come a moment where one agrees with the ancestors' beliefs.
I know that Tess, a good and sensible girl, should have rebeled against her parents before they had messed up with her life. But as you said, her naivity (adding that she was a good daughter) and a corrupted society were not on her side when she needed help.
Her parents, despite acknowledging the wrong desicions that lead to Tess' suffering, they didn't learn nor give her the right support.
What impressed me is that Tess had the ability to forgive her parents. If I had been her, I wouldn't have forgave them for a long time (maybe forever) as well as myself for obeying them.
That is true, but we have the advantage of being better taught, better informed of the world surrounding us. We, women, have as much power as men in some things as well as the same choices. Back then there was so very little we could do.I agree with you about her being an incredible person by forgiving her parents. I don't know whether I would or not. After all, they were her parents. It's hard to picture whether I would or not. I'd hate them for a long time, that's for sure.
Angel, in my view, was a hypocrite, but he returned to her, even though he took his time. He just missed the timing. I don't like him at all,but we have to give him some credit for that.
Well, I admit that he admitted his errors and give her what he could till the end.However, like you, I didn't like him because he though bad of her as if she had cheated on him when that didn't happen, as if she had made fun of him.
Maybe Tess didn't explain it well because of the lack of education, but at that point he would have really known her, her virtuosity, her capacity, almost all about her. Even at some point she didn't expect of marrying him.
And yes, we have the advantage that we are in a better informed world, but there is still injustice and there are still many walls we need to break like the psychological and emotional walls.
What happened to Tess can still happen at some point with other women nowadays, maybe in a lower degree but it can still happen.
What I can see very randomly and what I could thank God if it happens is finding someone who can truly give support to a woman like Tess, be a true friend who doesn't want to help you in order to gain something in exchange.
Just one question, would Angel have really despised her if she had been pardoned?
I don't think Angerl would have despised her. I think in the end he was just confused about his feelings and didn't know what to think of her. I think he would have loved her.That's true and it's not rare from happening, but still, it's different.
I think Angel was repulsed by the confession that Tess gave of killing her husband. She was once a young and naive girl, but she was kind of forced to go with her supposed "cousin". In any event, she wanted to go with Angel and the only way out of her marriage was murder, or so she thought. All to be with Angel. She had one tough life.
That parson guy from the begining. If he had just kept what he knew to him self then all that crap could've been avoided!
Weird wrote: "That parson guy from the begining. If he had just kept what he knew to him self then all that crap could've been avoided!"Well, that's true. But her father is to blame,too.
Yeah, and also her mother.
Both parents were culpable in this instance, they thought if Tess married "up" then she would be set for life. And they got caught up in maybe in some way being related to Durbeyville, to get his money too.
Robin wrote: "Both parents were culpable in this instance, they thought if Tess married "up" then she would be set for life. And they got caught up in maybe in some way being related to Durbeyville, to get his ..."The problem was that. They wanted the money so much, they discarded the dangers it would bring to their naive and guilliable daughter.
I think poor Tess was doomed from the very beginning. But then Tess found out too late that her husband was not the person he purported to be. She was naive and gullible after all she was just a country girl and did not know the ways of the world.
Yes, she was too pure for the world. That's way this novel was first called "a story of a pure woman"
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
So for my money, Angel because he's the only character in this book who should have known better, did know better and still behaved like a child. Boo, Angel, hiss!