the missing month ?

[tanner]

Hey guys
i'm studying Tess as my school text for VCE, and while i was analysing it, there seemed to be a month and a half missing from the time that Alec rapes tess to when she leaves the D'Uberville mansion...
It seems very out of character for Tess to actually stay with Alec as his mistress, yet for the life of me i can't fathom why she didn't leave straight after the rape...
Also, a student from another class drew up a time line of events that happened and it shows that Tess did not actually fall pregnant the night of the rape, because it does not coincide with the birth of Sorrow, meaning that Tess slept with Alec after the rape.

the problem i'm having is that for me to be able to write an essay on Tess being a victim, i can't see her as such if she willingly slept with Alec afterwards..

any ideas?

- tanner

[mono]

Hello, tanner, welcome to the forum. ;)
I also thought it strange for Tess to remain with Alec, yet, considering Alec's character, I suppose, it makes some sense. Alec d'Urberville from the very beginning seems like a very seductive, witty man, but also someone very manipulative and greedy, explaining how he could have taken advantage of the naïvete of Tess. She never willingly had intercourse with him, and did not exactly seem entirely physically forced, but more like weakened and aggressively persuaded by the strong will of Alec; indeed, I would still consider this forceful, only not in the common sense of the word 'rape,' as it seems frequently used today.

Also, a student from another class drew up a time line of events that happened and it shows that Tess did not actually fall pregnant the night of the rape, because it does not coincide with the birth of Sorrow, meaning that Tess slept with Alec after the rape.
I did not notice this in the book, but, somehow, and I hate to admit it, this may have some truth. Tess, with her first time living away from home (and by coercion from her family), only knowing Alec away from home, and her obviously insecure feelings towards herself, for Alec she seems like what one may call an 'easy target.' Even if they conceived Sorrow during another event, the fact would not surprise me that Tess subjected herself more and more to Alec's manipulation.

[tanner]

maybe. the only thing that i can really rebut to that is, if she is forced to stay with him for so long after the initial rape, why does she leave at all?.. there are some theorists who claim that when Hardy originally wrote Tess, he was forced to use a mock marriage between Tess and Alec for the rape to even occur, so perhaps the missing month is just a time lapse left in by Hardy .. i dunno to me, both these theories sound pretty weak but i can no longer really see her as opposing Alec as well as she should have, and thus no longer the victim crusified by society as much.

- tanner

[mono]

Hello again, tanner. :wave:

maybe. the only thing that i can really rebut to that is, if she is forced to stay with him for so long after the initial rape, why does she leave at all?..
In my opinion, out of any crisis, an individual can, indeed, 'fight or flight,' as the common phrase goes, or 'give in,' which our heroine happened to do in her naïvete and lack of exposure to how the world works. With every unsolved problem, however, she finally realizes how unjust Alec has acted, and, despite her family's debate, leaves him, regardless.
Personally, as simple as I may sound, I think she merely did not know how to respond to the whole problem with Alec, explaining why she remained with him so long after his manipulation, sexual force, and impulsiveness.

there are some theorists who claim that when Hardy originally wrote Tess, he was forced to use a mock marriage between Tess and Alec for the rape to even occur, so perhaps the missing month is just a time lapse left in by Hardy .. i dunno to me, both these theories sound pretty weak but i can no longer really see her as opposing Alec as well as she should have, and thus no longer the victim crusified by society as much.
I agree with you, actually, feeling a little unsure of that theory. Of course, in Hardy's time, a lot in terms of cultural values, industry, and religion seemed in great flux; not ironically, this era (1891) also seemed around the beginning of the women's rights movement in England, and Tess' increasing autonomy, to me, symbolizes (directly or indirectly by Hardy) the formation.

[Sierra]

I agree that rape in the sense that we see it as violent and without consent, but that doesn't mean that Tess wasn't taken advantage of. Think about how experienced Alec is and how kniving. Also in the book, Tess confront Alex and says basically that he ignored her when she said no. So, I think that while she may have been taken by surprise when he rudely awoke her, she tried to stop him, and as he admitted, he thought her no was something like a yes.

Afterwards, I think she became somewhat of his lover, whether she felt like she had to because he took her virginity, or whether he sweettalked her enough to get her head in the clouds. However, Tess never seemed like one with her head in the clouds. She even seems to be more aware than any other character in the entire novel.

So bottom line: I think he ignored her protests and then took her as a lover. This doesn't mean she wasn't taken advantage of, and I think is still very much a victim. Not that she was a victim the entire novel, but very much was a young girl ill used.

[Roumena]

In the original, censored version of the novel that appeared in The Graphic, Alec d'Urberville deceives Tess with a sham marriage before becoming her lover. As soon as she discovers the trick, she leaves him. She does not become pregnant.

This is a possible reason why some inconsistencies may occur in terms of dates and events in the later versions of the novel.

[Roumena]

In the original, censored version of the novel that appeared in The Graphic, Alec d'Urberville deceives Tess with a sham marriage before becoming her lover. As soon as she discovers the trick, she leaves him. She does not become pregnant.

This is a possible reason why some inconcistencies may appear in terms of dates and events in the edited version