and i'll be a follower!
Printable View
and i'll be a follower!
The Reason why Grace goes back to him that she feels morally obligated by the law and the Death of Giels Winterbourne
Mrs Charmond Did not Die abroad she got shot by a spurned lover from South Carolina when she returned to Hintock House
the whole novel reflects the new age darwinian approach to survival- attitudes towards religion and science where changing and Fitzpiers represents this by his associations with science, he is of the new age Giles and Marty with the old. It is no longer a case of the moral man defeating the immoral man- it reflects social change Giles needed to move with the times like Fitzpiers, he wouldn't so he died, the truimph of the immoral reflects real life unfortunately.
I believe Fitzpiers is not ur typical villain. Hardy shows too much compassioin towards him. He never got his "come-uppance" as did Mrs. Charmond (by dyin abroad). Why is this?????? He is obviously a bad guy. A cheating, lying scumbag. So why does Grace go back to him?????
Mrs. Charmond did indeed die abroad.
I loved this book, by the way. Beautiful prose!
Fitzpiers is a curious character. He is educated and progressive, but he's also presented as a bit of a wally. All his knowledge is book-learning. He will never excel at anything because he nevers pursues any field of study for long enough. Even in his profession as a medical man he is unlikely to build up a thriving practice because he does not work hard enough at it. He is a complete contrast to Giles Winterbourne, who works very hard, and has a lot of practical knowledge. However, Fitzpiers is independently wealthy and Winterbourne is not.
I wonder whether Hardy saw anything of himself in Fitzpiers. I wondered that, because one of Fitzpiers interests is German philosophy, which Hardy had an interest in himself. In Fitzpiers the interest is made to seem like an affectation or dilettantism, similar to his late night chemistry experiments. I wonder if Hardy's opinion of German pholiosophy was as something unproven or of dubious value. Previously, Mr Mellbury mentioned that his daughter, Grace, had had her character assessed by a phrenologist. I think this was in response to someone's suggestion to read her fortune. There had been a lot of interest in phrenology in the 19th century. Perhaps by the time Hardy was writing, people had started realizing that it was pseudo-science.
I wondered whether Hardy saw anything of Fitzpiers in himself again while reading chapter 19. Fittzpiers does not have any work to do so goes off on a walk, hoping to run into Grace. He sees some workmen, plus Marty, stripping the bark from some trees and watches them. He talks to Marty about her skill. Hardy must have spent a lot of time watching country folk hard at work, and he must have talked to them. Hardy seems to greatly admire the hard-working, though poorly-paid peasants, more so than the idle rich anyway. In his position, I think I might have felt a bit uncomfortable and wondered what the peasants were making of me.
Fitzpiers is not an evil man. He is just rather thoughtless and selfish. He does whatever appeals to him at the time and does not think through the consequences.
Kev, you present interesting thoughts about Fitzpiers.
It shouldn't be hard to accept that Hardy drew many of his character qualities from himself. As a very thoughtful man with broad interests, he was not just a sensitive observer of human behavior but gave a lot of thought to understanding them. He believed that his identity included the people around him.
One way of understanding the Fitzpiers character is that he begins the novel as a new physician yet immature and uncommitted to any function in life. He doesn't understand himself or his place in society, even while he's obviously a skillful and knowledgeable physician. So, even while formally committed to Grace in marriage, he's distracted by other women and diverse intellectual subjects which offer him near term pleasure. By the end of the novel with his near term diversions having led him to failure and emptiness, he commits at last to Grace and his medical profession.
No, Fitzpiers isn't an evil man, even while he's harmed others. Rather he's been in confused disharmony with himself and his society, but he evolves toward altruism. Fitzpiers will never become a better man than Giles, but he's at last on track to be the best man he can be.
At the end of the book Mr Melbury does not seem very optimistic about his son-in-law becoming a much better man, at least not a more faithful man. He reflects that he was sleeping with Mrs Charmond the previous year, and Suke Dawson the year prior to that.
I have only read two Thomas Hardy books, but Fitzpiers seems like a typical Hardy villain. Like Angel Clare, he is not evil, just not good enough. I think Hardy toned down Alec d'Urberville in the later editions of Tess so that he was not completely bad either.
Kev, you're right that we don't know the future for Fitzpiers, whether he'll actually be a good husband and physician or relapse into his old ways. We only have good reason to believe he's intent on the better course when the novel ends. George Melford is naturally cautioned by Fitzpiers' past behavior, as any father-in-law would be. Relating The Woodlanders to Tess, one might liken the condition of Fitzpiers to Angel at the end of their respective novels. Like Fitzpiers, we don't really know how much more advanced Angel will be in his future life. All we know is that when we leave these characters they want to be better men and their sense of self seems to have grown to include others.
You refer to Fitzpiers and Angel as being typical Hardy villains. Others might feel neither were really villains, although they both certainly harmed well meaning Hardy heroines. Hardy seems rather modern in dealing with the faults of his main characters in fully describing the harm they do others without defining them as villains or evil. Fitzpiers, after all, chose a demanding career aimed at helping people. Angel never set out to harm Tess, but did only because of his passionate love delusions and self-centered understanding of others.
It might be said there are no characters in The Woodlanders who qualify as genuine villains and in Tess only one, the tenant farmer at Flintcomb-Ash. That farmer was such a minor character I don't believe he was even named.
That was Farmer Groby I think. He was not that minor. He was uncouth, unpleasant and exploitative, but not an out-and-out villain neither. Tess prefers him to Alec.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maple
Kev, you're right, the Flintcomb-Ash tenant farmer did have a name, Groby. My mistake and thanks. But, by my reading Groby (thanks again) was a minor character. His role in the novel was a simple one: he represented cruelty in the Wessex agrarian scene as it related to Tess and her class. He made few actual appearances in the novel and all of them were rather one dimensional in delivering unnecessary harshness to Tess. Hardy took no pains to develop his character other than delivering willful harshness to Tess. If you think of all the other characters in Tess who do her harm, Hardy tells us a lot more about their circumstances leading us to understand the pressures on them and how they became what they are. All we know about Groby is that he's a rat, probably not an uncommon one in the Wessex world, and one to whom Tess' laboring class were prey.
As to Tess preferring him to Alec. My goodness. Tess preferred cruel hardship to accepting ill-gotten material comfort, but is that really the same as preferring one man to another? Alec wanted possession and domination of Tess' body and spirit. Say what we will about Groby, he didn't make sexual demands of Tess as other cruel men in this situation easily might've. Hardy probably thought about him attempting sexual advances toward Tess, but as we know Tess she'd have left his employment and starved before submitting to him.