Printable View
Hey all. I just finished reading Tess of the D'urberville an loved it; however not so much the ending though. Does anyone have an alternate ending to this novel or some kind of sequel. As for sequel, it goes into Angel and Liza lu marriage and how unhappy he his because he still loves Tess? I'm not really sure. Ot like Tess haunts them. I'm not sure. Please if you have an alternate ending or ideas for sequel can you please share. Thanks.
Why should there be an alternate ending or a sequel? As far as I know, Hardy did not bother, so neither should we...
Mind you, there are writers of whom it is known that they had another ending, but did away with it (Persuasion by Austen is one, and it was a boring one at that, so she did a good job! :)).
Tess is supposed to be depressing and really futile and useless, it is its style and Hardy's style. You can't change it. As for the sequel, is it really that important?
He is writing in something resembling a naturalist mode. What that means is, from his perspective, his ending is the only possible ending under these circumstances. The characters could not escape the forces controlling them, and leading them to their end. That is part of the message of the text, and sets the stage - everyone is trapped in their own way, and flawed - Hardy's ending is unhappy, but in a sort of poetic way offers a conclusion and a redemption on the part of most of the characters, it is fitting - whether they are unhappy is not the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Waw, thank you JBI for that to-the-point explanation. :)
I thought the ending of the novel was very good.
Me too actually.
with an alternate ending is Dickens' Great Expectations. Dickens first ending had Pip and Estella parting, but at his publisher's urging, he rewrote the ending with the two ending up together. My copy of Great Expectations has the original ending. Even the great David Lean movie has Dickens' happy ending.
I'm glad Tess ended as it did. Of course a few years after Hardy, England would repeal capital punishment. Recently, Australia gave a purported American wife murderer 18 mos. in prison. He was extradited to the US to stand trial, but the US had to promise he would not be tried for a capital crime. And Scotland's release of the Lockerbee (sp?) airplane bomber was really nice of them. Kill over 200 people and only serve a few months. I'm glad we are civilized in the US and still give murderers the death cocktail.
There are other people who think about things differently, and about Lockerbie (that is the right spelling), there are a lot of doubts that it was him. I mean, not being interrogated by the police on special demand of Lybia and then having a lot of circumstancial evidence that really does not add up; plus, no jury... (we can't have people ask themselves the question, 'Are we really 100% sure', can we?) No wtnesses, apart from two which receive millions of dollars to convince them to witness and then one decants later. One alleged suspect even had connections to the CIA; he was not included in the trial. They needed a conviction, right?
But this is not the forum to discuss it.
Now that is an eyebrow-raising question!Quote:
Originally Posted by ysabella