Who you dislike more: Alec or Angel, and why?

[victorianfan]

I have to say Angel. He's a wimp.

[janesmith]

Definitely Angel. Apart from being a monumental hypocrite he singlehandedly manages to epitomise the meaning of the Victorian sexual double standard.

[kelby_lake]

Dislike Angel more, for his wimpishness. Ironically Alec is more faithful, even though he caused the misfortune in the first place.

[BookWorm_x]

Hmmm....That is a tricky one....On the one hand, Alec does do the obvious despicable act of raping Tess in the first place. This consequently leads to pretty much everything else and Tess's death. Alec is truly a hateful character.

On the other hand, if Angel hadn't left her to go to Brazil once he found out about Alec, then Tess would have been safe, she wouldn't have killed Alec and therefore, would not have murdered Alec, and would have not have subsequently been hanged herself. However, Angel is a product of his own time, where his hypocrisy and double standard attitude is perfectly acceptable, though, obviously a modern reader would find this behaviour outrageous, contemporary readers would not have condemned Angel for his actions.
Though I think we're meant to dislike Angel for leaving Tess, I believe his intentions are much more honourable, and he genuinely cares for Tess. Alec is the true villain and he ultimately leads to Tess destruction.

[kelby_lake]

Hmmm....That is a tricky one....On the one hand, Alec does do the obvious despicable act of raping Tess in the first place. This consequently leads to pretty much everything else and Tess's death. Alec is truly a hateful character.

On the other hand, if Angel hadn't left her to go to Brazil once he found out about Alec, then Tess would have been safe, she wouldn't have killed Alec and therefore, would not have murdered Alec, and would have not have subsequently been hanged herself. However, Angel is a product of his own time, where his hypocrisy and double standard attitude is perfectly acceptable, though, obviously a modern reader would find this behaviour outrageous, contemporary readers would not have condemned Angel for his actions.

I think that's a sweeping generalisation. Angel is meant to be pure and of good faith. I don't think contemporary readers would have thought much of his romp or his lack of Christian forgiveness, and I don't think Hardy's suggesting it's okay for Angel to do that because it's just what men did back then.

[kiki1982]

I think that's a sweeping generalisation. Angel is meant to be pure and of good faith. I don't think contemporary readers would have thought much of his romp or his lack of Christian forgiveness, and I don't think Hardy's suggesting it's okay for Angel to do that because it's just what men did back then.

I tend to agree with that. I think that Hardy put enough clues in his work(s) to consider it probable that Angel - who was maybe a product of his time where thise kind of double standard was deemed acceptable - was meant to be an example of what injustices happened in that society.

Teaching simple peasants that one can baptise at any time and with any water and then refusing a baby to be burried in sacred ground because Tess baptised it herself?
Having someone leave because his wife is not a virgin, not being a virgin himself. Seriously, you love her or you do not. You certainly do not abandon her.
Then have the same guy who made a woman illegitimately pregnant turn into a raving preacher who then cannot resist simple temptation. Shows you how hollow all that bible stuff is, really. It is no more than painting on a wall (literally evoked in the novel). Actually I seem to remember that Alec made Tess swear on a stone somewhere that she wasn't going to tempt him. As if that largely depends on the other. Eve also ate from the tree because of the serpent. Yeah right, she took the decision.

[kelby_lake]

It's better to evaluate Angel's character separately, not as a comparison with Alec, because then the argument is essentially "Alec raped her and Angel didn't rape her. Rape is horrible therefore Alec is the worse character." That argument doesn't give any insight into either of the characters.

Angel was meant to be Tess' salvation, someone who wouldn't subscribe to the hypocrisy of the age. However, he abandons her because he cannot reconcile himself with the idea that she is not chastity incarnate. Alec recognises Tess' sensuality- he takes advantage of it at a time when she cannot understand it, but through the 'courting', she realises her sensuality. The tragedy is that she realises it too early.

Personally, I think that Tess, Angel and even Alec have been strongly influenced by their parents- sometimes in ways they could do nothing about.

[kev67]

I suppose I dislike Alec more because Tess did. Alec took advantage of her, made her pregnant and spolit her chances of happiness. Angel was hypocritical, pharisaical and unbending when he learns Tess is not a virgin, but if Alec hadn't ruined her, those characteristics would not have come out. The marriage to Angel could have been happy. A marriage to Alec would not.

[Wayne Jr]

Alec reminded me of Rhett Butler, so I just checked my book shelf, and voila!
They have striking resemblance, in appearance and character, they even have the same kind of history of wrong doings. Rhett is described, swarthy completion, bold eyes, full lips, tall and musculin, and has a mustache. He is a oppotunist, passionate, and vile, also more aggressive and sensual. ( he also drinks and buy prostitutes.. Yak!)
When Scarlet first met him, she heard his rumor, he took a girl for buggy riding, and they didn't come home till next day. He refused to marry her because he didn't do anything to her. Her brother challenged a duel and Rhett killed him. Scarlet asked her friend if the girl had his baby, and she said no but "she was ruined just the same."
Interesting, isn't it? Maybe, Alec could have been Rhett's inspiration. And Ashley Wilkes could be Angel?
He is also a tragic character who pursue a woman who never return his love. ( however Scarlet realizes her love for him in the end but tad too late)
He also forcibly made love with his wife. ( and she liked it. This definitely reflects Mitchell's fantasy....some women like sexually aggressive men)

Margaret Mitchell is a woman, and Rhett is her romantic hero. For women, and as a wonan myself, I think Alec's character is more appealing than Angel's.

[Wayne Jr]

Great post.

[QUOTE=kelby_lake;976681]It's better to evaluate Angel's character separately, not as a comparison with Alec, because then the argument is essentially "Alec raped her and Angel didn't rape her. Rape is horrible therefore Alec is the worse character." That argument doesn't give any insight into either of the characters.

Angel was meant to be Tess' salvation, someone who wouldn't subscribe to the hypocrisy of the age. However, he abandons her because he cannot reconcile himself with the idea that she is not chastity incarnate. Alec recognises Tess' sensuality- he takes advantage of it at a time when she cannot understand it, but through the 'courting', she realises her sensuality.



You have a point. I totally agree.
Her fall was a beginning of her tragedy, however, as well as her sexual awakening. She changed from " simple girl to complex women", became "a fine creature".

[kiki1982]

Alec reminded me of Rhett Butler, so I just checked my book shelf, and voila!
They have striking resemblance, in appearance and character, they even have the same kind of history of wrong doings. Rhett is described, swarthy completion, bold eyes, full lips, tall and musculin, and has a mustache. He is a oppotunist, passionate, and vile, also more aggressive and sensual. ( he also drinks and buy prostitutes.. Yak!)
When Scarlet first met him, she heard his rumor, he took a girl for buggy riding, and they didn't come home till next day. He refused to marry her because he didn't do anything to her. Her brother challenged a duel and Rhett killed him. Scarlet asked her friend if the girl had his baby, and she said no but "she was ruined just the same."
Interesting, isn't it? Maybe, Alec could have been Rhett's inspiration. And Ashley Wilkes could be Angel?
He is also a tragic character who pursue a woman who never return his love. ( however Scarlet realizes her love for him in the end but tad too late)
He also forcibly took his wife. ( and she liked it. This definitely reflects Mitchell's fantasy....some women like sexually aggressive men)

Margaret Mitchell is a woman, and Rhett is her romantic hero. For women, and as a wonan myself, I think Alec's character is more appealing than Angel's.

I have only seen the film of GWTW a few times, but now you've come to mention it, those two set-ups definitely sound similar

I'm not sure about Ashley Wilkes, but as I said, I've only seen the film. Was he also a bit of a nonsensical doormat in the novel or not? In the film he seems a little scared of Scarlet (wo wouldn't be ;)). Rhett is almost the only man who's really worthy of her, so to say, with all the bad stuff that appens afterwards because of that worthiness, of course.

[Maple]

If the question means who did greater harm to Tess, it's almost impossible to say. In the plot, Alec destroyed her reputation to the man she loved. Angel rejected her after he succeeded in becoming the love of Tess' life. Alec became a villain because he acted out his essential self. Angel became a villain by stifling his genuine nature to serve the self-repression and social standards he was taught.

A question related to the greater villain is what was Hardy trying to get across to his readers with the two characters. My take is that Alec was a largely an agent of the industrial revolution wreaking destruction of Tess' world. His money gave him ultimate power over the rural, poor working folks who had no defenses. Angel was a representation of Victorian social standards that had been molded by Victorian clergy into a destructive, repressive and punishing discipline. Alec was a self-made villain enabled by industrial revolution wealth while Angel was instructed and mangled into rejecting his better nature and his ideal mate. Alec's character and behavior couldn't be changed . Angel became a better person in rejecting some of his self-repression.

Both Angel and Alec were exhibits of the hazards facing the rural laboring class, especially the young women. Neither Tess nor any of her friends managed to escape ruin.

[Emma Carraro]

Without a doubt I dislike Angel more. I don't believe that Alec raped Tess, I think it was a seducation that she came to regret. I also do not believe that Angel really loved Tess the women, but Tess the ideal.

[kelby_lake]

Without a doubt I dislike Angel more. I don't believe that Alec raped Tess, I think it was a seducation that she came to regret.

I think this is true to an extent but bear in mind that Tess says that her mother never told her anything of men. The extent of her sexual knowledge was not that of a woman who could happily consent. I believe that she liked the seduction because it allowed her to experiment with her sexuality but when it came to a literal seduction, she became nervous and realised that she may have 'led him on'. Because we don't know how much Tess actually knows about sexual matters, she might not know anything about sex at all- or at least, a minimal amount- therefore the experience might have been frightening for her.


I also do not believe that Angel really loved Tess the women, but Tess the ideal.

I think he proves his true colours at the end when he returns to her, but his weakness is that he cannot see past orthodoxy. He imagines himself to be exempt from Christian hypocrisy whereas actually he completely subscribes to it.

[Maple]

Kelby, you're insightful on Angel. Angel imagines himself enlightened, but he surrenders his marriage and the woman he loves to conformance with hypocritical and unjust social norms even as they make him miserable.

If we're going to address the greatest villain in this novel, shouldn't Joan be considered? Joan shifts responsibility for the Derbyville household to Tess, who's not ready. Joan set Tess up to be deflowered in hopes Alec's family would support them. Joan understood Alec well enough and was virtually complicit in the Chase scene seduction. With Tess' demise, largely the result of Joan, we can assume Joan next planned on sacrificing Liza-Lu and eventually all her daughters.

Even if Angel inflicted greater misery on Tess than Alec, it seems Angel was the better person. He tried to enlighten his thinking and open his mind to advanced thoughts. By comparison, Alec was dedicated to his selfish pleasures and showed no inclination or capacity to be a better person. Angel certainly falls short as a worthy lover of Tess and his marriage to Tess was almost surely destined for unhappiness, but ultimately his character is struggling toward advancement and gives us hope.

[mona amon]

Who you dislike more: Alec or Angel, and why?

What's to choose? They're both jerks of equal magnitude!

[Maple]

Both Alec and Angel are inadequate partners for Tess, and Mona's right that who did the greater harm to Tess ultimately isn't productive. Hardy has crafted both characters to show different kinds of harm done to rural laboring young women. Alec is certainly a jerk, but while Angel hurts Tess terribly one understands he isn't acting entirely of his free will. As Hardy suggests, Angel is far from the enlightened man he imagines himself, when in difficulty he's inclined to revert to convention. Still Angel grows a bit and comes to challenge the social standards that drove him to reject Tess earlier. Challenging the social standards of one's time is hard for most of us, and in belatedly doing so Angel deserves credit. Also, Angel eventually becomes somewhat sympathetic in that his wrongs to Tess bring great misery to him, as well.

[Maple]

We can rate the villainy of Alec, Angel and Joan in several ways: most hurtful wounds, most permanent harm, and greatest selfishness at Tess' expense.

I rate Joan highest in permanent harm. She practically bound Tess over to Alec knowing a sexual relationship was inevitable. Moreover, she deliberately didn't provide Tess the commonplace parental guidance to avoid situations in which she'd be vulnerable. She didn't because Joan wanted Tess and Alec to have sex, and whether that sex took place before or after marriage didn't matter to Joan. Joan was certain the sex would lead to marriage, or at least support for the Derbyville household.

In terms of deepest wounds, I'd say Angel for his cruel remarks on the wedding night that changed Tess' expressive mouth into a little hole. Also, his abandonment of her on an empty road in an empty scene is extreme heartlessness. However, Tess would probably say the deepest wounds were made by Alec when he made disparaging remarks about Angel. Actually, the comments weren't without justification, but they hurt Tess deeply perhaps because they had justification.

In terms of selfishness at Tess' expense, I see a draw between Joan and Alec. Joan's first reaction to Tess' return from Trantridge, unmarried or otherwise unattached is to accuse her of never putting the welfare of her family ahead of herself. Alec, of course, was a character who never put anyone or anything ahead of himself. He's a totally selfish character lacking understanding or interest in the harm he does to others.

All the above considered, my nomination for the worst villain is Joan.

[kelby_lake]

Alec does Tess the most literal harm, although as you argue, Joan essentially pimped her out, knowing full well what would happen but hoping that Tess would marry Alec and it would all be done with.

[Aylinn]

Of the two, definitely Alec is the biggest jerk. He learned nothing, he could not understand how unwelcome he was. And he was taunting Tess, which I think can be classified as emotional abuse.
I didn’t like Angel for leaving Tess and being unable to see what a hypocrite he is. But at least he started to question the conventional standards by which he judged her. It partially redeemed him in my eyes.

[kelby_lake]

Ah, but Angel was too late, as with all Hardy stories.

[mal4mac]

Ah, but Angel was too late, as with all Hardy stories.

"Under the Greenwood Tree" is an exception, I've never read such an upbeat novel! Very disappointing :) (Not really - it's a superb novel.)

[Maple]

The longer I think about Tess the more I rethink every feeling about the novel I've had. On the question of who's the greatest villain, Alec, Angel or Joan, I've at some time picked each of them. Each did a lot of harm to Tess, albeit in different ways.

If it's relevant what Hardy may have intended, another view on villains is that he didn't was less interested in comparing these three than in using them to portray a range of unjust hurdles facing Wessex laboring women. The nature of their work was being undermined by a long depressed economy and encroaching technologies of the industrial revolution. Wealthy transplants from commercial areas, like the d'Urbervilles at Trantridge, were able to feast on the native poor girls in some sense like pheasant hunters shot their prey for sport. Then you had the natives with some social stature, like the Clares, whose Christian doctrines could be misshapen by Victorian standards. Joan is basically a pragmatic realist of Tess' class who recognizes that about the only way for Tess to have a decent life was to use her physical attractions to bond with a wealthy man. Taking life to be what see saw it to be, Joan maneuvers Tess into situations to produce this bonding.

Hardy shows us enough that we realize each villainous candidate has been behaved in response to the forces that move them. None of these characters is really free, self-determined or independent. Tess might be the only self-determined character in the novel even while she seems under the control of all. She chose uncompromising virtue, was willing to pay its price, and did.

[kev67]

Then you had the natives with some social stature, like the Clares, whose Christian doctrines were often misshapen by Victorian standards.

Only Angel Clare's Christian beliefs were misshapen, if he actually had any left. The rest of his family's Christian doctrines were impeccable.



Hardy shows us enough that we realize each villainous candidate has been behaved in response to the forces that move them. None of these characters is really free, self-determined or independent. Really, Tess might be the only self-determined character in the novel even while she seems under the control of all. She chose uncompromising virtue, was willing to pay its price, and did.

I am not sure I agree. They all make choices that they were not forced to make. Alec is financially independent. Angel is not financially independent, but he has a large allowance and is able to take his time in deciding what he wants to do. Angel is not as free-thinking and progressive as we thought he was, while Alec has a difficult time resisting temptation, but they still could have made other decisions. I am not sure Tess did choose uncompromising virtue either. She did go back to being Alec's mistress, very reluctantly because her family were homeless and because she thought she had been abandoned, but she did compromise. Plus, in the end, she did murder Alec, which is hardly virtuous.

[Maple]

Kev, on misshapen Christian views, Angel's two brothers, Mercy Chant and the Marlott vicar are all portrayed with their religious views misshapen.

Where others may see most of the novel's characters making free choices, I don't. Where most of us have the feeling we decide what we do, our actions can also be seen as governed by forces be don't control. Alec is possessed by his craving for pleasure. His one deviation was a short fling with religion, something Tess never accepted as genuine and something Alec soon abandoned, again for pleasure. Angel was governed by social conformance. Whatever love he felt for Tess was subordinate to his social conformance.

Tess was certainly a unique character in the sense of self-determination. Her personality was quite different from her parents and her social class. A question some readers must have is where did this girl acquire this personality. While seeking pleasure and fulfillment, why was she so willing to sacrifice herself rather than compromise a bit. Right up to the novel's end she steadfastly refuses to compromise at all, even to save her life.

Of course there's no question Tess' killing of Alec wasn't an act of virtue (although in specified situations we praise individuals for killing others), she was driven insane by the hopelessness of her life. Angel returns to her hoping to find happiness for himself and Tess but ironically his return shatters the little that's left of Tess' mind.

[kev67]

I suppose Angel's two brothers and Mercy Chant were rather priggish, judgmental, and not as kind as they should have been. I think Angel used the word 'pharisaical' when he looked back on his own actions.

I wondered where Tess got her conscientiousness from. True, it wasn't from her parents. Maybe it was from school or church, or maybe it was just in her personality.

Regarding self-determination, I got the sense that poor Tess was burdened with a fate she could not avoid. On the way back from her abortive mission to Angel's parents village, she thinks her woes won't end until she, herself, ends. On the same return journey, Alec makes her swear an oath on what he thinks is a religious monument, but which turns out to be cursed. There are references to Greek tragedies throughout the book, for example, on the last page. I am not very familiar with Greek mythology but I get the impression much of it is about heroes who struggle to escape against their fates, but never manage in succeeding.

[Maple]

Kev, if you're fairly described as not being very familiar with Greek mythology, your knowledge of this subject is vast compared to mine. I know nothing and have never been able to get into it.

As to the priggish Christianity you refer to in Angel's brothers and Mercy Chant, the Marlott vicar is especially significant. In his case while he does offer some kindness to Tess in reassuring her her late night service for Sorrow would do, he refuses to provide his services to bury the child in the observed area of the church's graveyard. He doesn't so much reject her plea on his personal grounds but in deference to the community's "priggishness." Here's an example of the whole society exhibiting a Christian unkindness through the willing vicar.