Thinking about Tess

I 100% agree. You've changed my mind.

Pursuant to your request via email ...
(Please don't hate me for rambling!)

Amanda: "Btw, Tess was one of the most depressing books ever. I would have killed Alec a long time ago, and Angel would have been next."

Raemi: I don't know about Tess. I think that she must have been raped, otherwise murdering Alec would be so disproportionate. I also don't think he deserved it really: he was kind of a lout, but it turned out that he really did love her, and his love for her wasn't the stupid idealistic love that Angel had. I liked how she loved Angel because he was "pure and good" while in reality he was neither pure nor good. She was in love with this idealistic image she had of him. When he revealed that he wasn't pure, and when his actions really demonstrated that he wasn't all that good, she never stopped loving him, though, while he instantly hated her for the nearly the same crimes.

I liked Alec though. He seemed like the only character who wasn't lying to himself.

The movie won the academy award in 1979. It was directed by Roman Polanzki and stars Natasha Kynski as Tess. I think I'm going to rent it. Apparently it's supposed to be awesome. Although, it doesn't make Angel marry the sister in the end.

I think that's important too, though. It really gets to the heart of how idealistic and material Angel inherently was. When he couldn't bear loving the damaged sister he embraced her younger "purer" self.

I have a few more questions at the back of my book. I'll type them in tonight.

This was such a depressing novel. In regard to your questions:

1. What was Hardy's intention in pointing out the weaknesses in Tess's lovers, Angel and Alex?

Tess, while pure, honorable, and loyal, is punished and ostracized, while Alec and Angel, who are vain, dishonorable, and selfish, are applauded. The fact that Angel, who is so unhappy about Tess's situation, attempts to pick up Izz and put her in the same position in his wife, points a bony (no pun intended) finger at Victorian society.


2. What is the significance of Stonehenge in the novel?

As we discussed before, the amount of Biblical and mystical references in this novel are astounding (and, in my opinion, distracting). Just like the dissenting religious views between Angel and his father, the line between superstitious doctrine and the Bible further add to the Victorian commentary. In the end, the thing that makes Tess feel pure is the superstition.

I am 100% with you on Angel's shortcomings, and was also quite surprised. I was also taken aback when he asked Izz to join him in Brazil, and the length of time he was there (illness not withstanding). In terms of your question, "Is Hardy not only commenting on the double standard imposed on women in this society, but also the idolization of legacy and class and the maintenance of social norms for the sake of tradition without any concern for betterment?" I would say yes. I think the fact that he uses the d'Urberville name to both scorn her and then applaud her to his parents shows the shortmindedness of the time period.

I don't think there is such a thing as the "reformed" Alec. After he gives up the temporary proselytizing, he thanks her for righting him (into his wrong self, of course). Although Tess is often described as the temptress by the author, Alec is actually the snake...and the apple.

In regard to the economic status, I think it's interesting that Tess goes willingly into Alec's money. When she kills Alec, she is wearing the late fashions, even though vanity was definitely not one of her qualities.

I didn't catch on about Angel's shortcomings, until he expressed them on their wedding night. Needless to say I was pretty surprised, especially since his response to Tess was so hypocritical. He considers himself a new modern man, but is inherently tied to the social norms of his class and religion. I think, that as he's traveling, and specifically with his discussion with Izz, he learns how hypocritical he is being and comes to terms with the fact that he's really acting in such a way that he would condemn in another person. In the same self-analysis though, he seems to take a few steps backward and determines that his original instinct must be correct, "if he was right then, than he's right now." Is Hardy not only commenting on the double standard imposed on women in this society, but also the idolization of legacy and class and the maintenance of social norms for the sake of tradition without any concern for betterment?

I have only come to the part in the novel where Tess is meeting the reformed Alec, but I can't really pinpoint a shortcoming in Alec, at least not to the same effect as Angel. Granted he began the story as a womanizing philanderer with little or no redeeming qualities, but his character was so one dimensional, and I'm not sure whether he needed any redeeming qualities. After Tess left the D'Urberville mansion, though it was clear, that while he was a rogue, he had some morals regarding common decency and would not have abandoned Tess.

I think Hardy is juxtaposing two people of the same economic class, but on different sides, cleric vs nobility. Angel the son of clerics, is more refined, has nicer manners and is kind and gentle, but underneath his true nature is judgmental and cynical and unmoving. On the other hand, Alec is rude, crass and may have some violent propensities, but at the same time equal in his treatment of others and sympathetic to those in need.

Below are some topics that may, or may not, start off discussions. Just to keep the juices flowing, sometimes I like to have questions already in mind when reading. These questions are adapted from a study guide posted on the Harvey Mudd College's Lit 117 website.

1. What was Hardy's intention in pointing out the weaknesses in Tess's lovers, Angel and Alex?

2. What is the significance of Stonehenge in the novel?