Was Tess really fated to be with Alec since her relationship with Angel never worked out?
Was Tess really fated to be with Alec since her relationship with Angel never worked out?
In a word, no. Tess was fated to be with Alec because she gave him information which allowed him to manipulate the situation to his advantage. Recall the conversation at the window when Tess innocently told Alec that her family was relocating to Kingsbere, whom do you suppose arranged their warm reception to no lodgings? Tess was a pure woman because in her simplicity she operated from pure motives. This purity of love and self sacrifice compelled her to sacrifice herself for the sake of getting her family off the street. First the loss of options then the loss of hope, this is the nature of tragedy.
For me it is yes, actually...
At the start of the story her mother Joan (and her father) get(s) taken with her claiming kin, which at length Tess does because she feels guilty for the horse, something that wouldn't have happened if her father hadn't come home drunk, which wouldn't have happened if the parson hadn't told him about his origins... Nothing of this would have happened if the d'Urbervilles weren't so damn proud...
In the end, Tess' mother ordanes her, as a bride, in order for Tess to marry d'Urberville, and in order to be supported financially by Alec. In the end, Tess didn't really have to end up in that horrible place doing horrible work if she hadn't been too proud to go to her father-in-law and if her father hadn't been useless earning money, which was needed to thatch the roof of their cottage.
But I suppose the question of fate implies that all those things happen because it is fate... Although mixed with the free will of people, and their special characteristics: pride in the case of Tess family, utter badness in the case of Alec and conformism concerning the Clares. Angel complains about his family that they are conformists, but if he is really tried he abandons his way of free thinking... Although, he and his family do turn around from their original judgement, the family for a very religious reason and probably also connected with the fact that Tess is of an old noble family, and Angel himself because this stranger told him that it was not the right thing to do and in the end he realises, like his family, that he needs to care for her because of her sin; that he is able to save her, from hell as it were... Ufortunately it is too late, as she has descended already.
Why, in naturalism is a totally futile question, because, sadly, there is no answer... This story could have well taken a totally different course if there had been only one of these that didn't happen. But they did...
Quite sad really, if you think about it...
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
I believe Hardy was actually a person who believed in fate and this is what drives many of his plots, if not all. So I would have to agree with Kiki that Tess being with Alec, is a mere and inevitable result of her fate. Kiki has layed it out well (above) - it was a chain of events and not merely one event. Once one event took place, the others quickly or eventually followed.
"It's so mysterious, the land of tears."
Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Originally Posted by abzu
see, you said it too. Fated is the point here. Tess was fated to be with Alec and hows or whys don't matter because this is fate- at least this is what i think Hardy's philosophy was. and this is what makes the story so sad.
Existence is not only temporary, it is pointless.
Yes Hardy does refer to 'fate' in the majority of his works, yet he is forever contadicting himself, and oh! doesn't he drone on, plus he makes Tess into some sort of super philosipher - and her little brother Abraham (9) doesn't do too bad either - chapter 4 'blighted world' discussion. Does anyone know what's really going on in Hardy's head?
Utter frustration with the world, the irrevocable misery and human nature which seems to want to wreck other people's lives?
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
why? What had he to stomp his feet, pound his chest and berate the world for? He was educated, never went hungry, was never roughly treated, was always shown love and support from his parents, teachers and friends, this, while the rest of 'working class' England were struggling to make ends meet.
That's where you said it. He must have seen that as well and have thought about why people have others suffer like that when it would easily be overcome...
'The inherent will to enjoy and the circumstantial will against enjoyment.'
That is what Hardy wrote in Tess, but the question is where the will to enjoy of the one person should end in order to allow the other to be able to enjoy as well, rather than creating circumstances that act against enjoyment.
No doubt the rich were enjoying their circumstances, but the workers in their factories, who were providing for their enjoyment, were not.
Why would a writer write only about his own circumstances? Why not ask about other people's situation? Writers always do, so the fact that he himself had been loved by everyone, and that he had enough money and food, sinks into the depths of unimportance when compared to the biggest part of society that struggled in misery, hunger and disease. If he had wanted to write about himself, he could have just written an autobiography...
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
He did, his second wife published them. Hardy was quite a calculating character when you look at it, he constantly contradicts himself. He got what he aimed for; fame, fortune and renown, people played supporting roles to his ambition. He took all he could from his first wife Emma, she was like his own private store of female actions /emotions, a bit of a fraud really if you look at him too deeply.
Tess was fated to die. I don't know if it is possible to make subjunctive guesses about naturalism, as that kind of defeats the concept.
If naturalism is the exploration of human nature as a whole, and the natural reactions of people to certain circumstances brought on out of the blue, then Tess is certainly the exploration of how human nature allows to bring misery on others. Whether that is a subjunctive guess?
Whether Tess was fated to die? Of course, as she was a human and humans are not immortal yet, but the main issue here is that she really brought the hanging (?) on herself by killing him, as kind of a way to kill herself in a justified way... She could have just left Alec, no issue there because he wasn't her husband. Instead, she killed him, knew that he would be found, and knew that she would be hanged (?) for it.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
The point that I was trying to make is that it was the choices that Tess made which drove her fate. Her marriage was only the beginning catalyst of a long series of events of bad choices driven by the hubris of pride. Our destiny may be written for us and is unchangable but our fate we write with every choice that we make, so yes, fate is consequences of choices and the last choice that Tess made that sealed her fate was the conversation at the window, only after that did her resolve to reject Alex unraval. Another way to look at it is that destiny is more like the overall strategy of the eventual outcome whereas fate is more like the individual tactical choices that inexerobly lead to the eventual outcome. Tess winding up with with Alex was in a state of flux until after the outcome from the conversation at the window had unfolded. So, was it Tess's destiny to be with Alex because her husband abandoned her, yes. Was it her fate to be with Alex because her husband abandoned her, no, it was her fate to be with Alex because of the conversation at the window. I hope that clarifies things a little.
abzu, still confusing the definition of "fate." You need to look up the western view of fate. The definition is quite different from what you suppose.
For Tess, personal pride was the one thing she had control over. Circumstances conspired to cast her down at every turn. Pride and love were two thing that kept her going. Of course the tragedy is that she could have been "saved" at many junctures, and yes , pride did get in the way.
The confusion of fate as a synonym for destiny goes a long way to explain the artificial duality construct of fate vs. free will. A more accurate perspective is that fate is the free will aspect of destiny and all works in concert with each other and not in opposition as in the duality construct. Western thought is undergoing a transformation as many of the false shibboleths of the past are put to the test, the "free money" concept upon which our failing economy is based is another example. In life as in Tess there are no victims excect as we victimize ourselves, some even say that those who seem to victimize us are doing us a great act of love and self sacrifice for the purpose of bringing us these experiences of victimization. Just something to think about, by that measure Tess would have recieved enough love for several lifetimes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote