Printable View
What would Alec have to apoligize for when he met Tess after seeing her after his conversion and preaching jag if he had not raped her? The strength of his apology should make the rape obvious, plus there is her unwavering general disdain for Alec which also makes her nonreceptivness to his advances a foregone conclusion.
Tommy Hardy got into a bit of trouble with his publishers. They obviously thought that Tess had it coming, and wanted it to happen. Hence why Hardy felt the need to include the subtitle A Pure Woman later. These days yes, Tess was definitely raped. I believe she was. But back in the day readers may have decided that Tess was asking for it, considering she didn't always act as a woman 'should' do.
Hardy does not simply allude to rape, and if one reads the novel with an open mind to the contrary it becomes clear that there is evidence that Tess becomes Alec's mistress for a time as he has seduced her.
In part 1 there are various hints that Tess is unintenionally leading Alec on. Then there are further hints after the event itself (which is left rather ambiguous) that imply that she was passive. Hardy leaves it three months after the event depicted in the woods before Tess leaves. Tess sights that she has seen the light which could either imply that she realised being his mistress was wrong or alternatively that she was pregnant. Again it's left ambiguous.
Within the context of the time period, Alec would be responsible for seducing her and making her his mistress just as much as if he were to rape her. For the majority of the Victorian society there would be little difference between the two. Therefore, Alec's constant appologies could easilly mean that he is sorry for seducing Tess into willingly becoming his mistress for three months. This is also be furthered by Tess constantly blaming herself.
When Angel asks Tess about the events he tries to force the conversation to encourage Tess to claim that it was rape. Yet she doesn't, instead saying she was confused. Again, this is deliberatly ambiguous but certainly doesn't just alude to rape.
In a later edition of the novel, Hardy actually embellishes on the line "and then she told" with a passage depicting the events at Tantridge. Here he describes it as Tess having become Alec's mistress for a time before Alec proposed that they married. However he took her to a fake parson who was infact a friend of his and faked the marriage. When she found out that they were not truley married she left Tantridge. Whilst this was omitted from later editions (seemingly because it destroyed the ambiguity) it seems to infer far more that she made love to Alec willingly on several occations.
It is however ridiculous to asert either one way or the other. To say Tess was definatly raped is obsured as it is never made clear one way or another, but merely hinted at. Ultimatly, it doesn't matter what exactly happened to her. Hardy is criticising both Christianity and Victorian vallues within this novel and by leaving the act wide open to interpretation encourages a broader interpretation and thus a vast criticism of several values as apposed to just one.
I think though, Grant, that you miss a large part of the point.
The first issue: whether it was rape or not is irrelevant; if Tess cried out, nothing could have changed. Ultimately, her fate, and the fate of her family rested on her job - Alec knew that, and from the beginning essentially took advantage of that, and sexually harassed her. Beyond that, she tried to dissuade him, but he became more militant - reached by the point where, if he didn't rape her, it was clear that she had no other options anyway - her job lying on his good opinion of her, and her family's future at stake. Whether there was consent or not is irrelevant - clearly, judging by Tess reaction to him from the beginning, there was no real romance there - the later Tess, when she reunites with him, is simply a self-defense mechanism, as once again she is at his mercy, financially, and out of options. The only possible outcome was for herto give in.
Beyond that too, there is still the point of fact, that after the sexual encounter, had she spoken out, though he may be punished (though unlikely), she ultimately would have been branded a whore by society, and rejected from everywhere on those grounds. Tough luck - no options, so though I think you bring up some points that there is still ambiguity, ultimately, the willingness of Tess, by the constructs of naturalism which structure the novel, was merely a survival mechanism - faced with failure, or giving in, her options seem to have been quite slim - family fails, or she, like they intended of her, is sacrificed. Her family from the beginning tried to whore her off, I guess by this point she realizes that there is no running from it, and is ultimately taken advantage of, once, exhausted from trying to get away.
hmm that is a wonderful question which was discussed in an earlier discussion which i had, i think she was raped but if you read a little further there is a part where she says took advantage of her when she was .......vulnerable so considering the fact she was so scared and i guess asleep when Alec approached her maybe she knew what was going on but just felt very raw and vulnerable and therefore just let it happen....... i think thats kind of the mystery among that situation maybe rape is implied or maybe the author just want the readers to have their own impression of what happened to her............................................... my first post :yawnb:
I have heard a lot about this book before reading it, and everyone always talks about Tess being raped, but I just cannot see it that way after reading about what happened.
From the start to the book Tess is shown to be a person who allows herself to be easily persuaded by other people, and with whom it does not take much effort to get her to forsake her own will for someone else's and to give into what other people want of her.
Based upon what is known about the kind of person Tess is and her own reflections after the incident occurred I believe that Tess allowed Alec to pressure her into consenting to his advances. She might not have per sea truly wanted to do it, but I do not believe that she actively protested against Alec or made any attempt to resist him, but she gave into what he wanted.
Alec was a cad and he did use his position to take advantage of Tess as well as used her own weakness against her, and Tess was naive and did not have a very strong personality, she was easily malleable, but I do not believe that Alec physically overpowered Tess and violently forced himself upon her.
While he did put Tess in a disadvantageous situation, pressuring someone into agreeing to do something which they may not want to do while is morally questionable I do not think constitutes "rape"
I do believe that Tess shares in part some responsibility for what happened for I believe that she could have by her own actions and behavior prevented herself from being placed in that position if she had on more than one occasion listened to and trusted her own judgement and stood more firmly behind her own convictions instead of so easily giving way to what others want.
I believe that the specific incident in the woods was rape- however Alech had started the process of seduction even since she bit into the strawberry. the strawberries, the learning how to whistle and the rose are so blatantly erotic symbols that it would be stupid to assume that she has absolutely no idea. Tess gets her awakening but she is not ready to go all the way.
She is not 'pure' in the chaste sense but in an earthly sense. It would have been more shocking back then to have her actively consent and desire Alec- at least if it was a rape, she was an innocent taken advantage of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Having read all of the posts I have to admit I wholeheartedly agree with you. The rape/seduction scene in The Chase is still one of the most ambiguous and hotly debated episodes in literature. I focused on Tess and some of Hardy's other late novels for my MA dissertation in order to expose and challenge late-Victorian biological discourses of female sexuality.
You are correct when you point out that contemporary readers would be outraged to think that a woman could be capable of sexual feeling. Therefore, unfortunately ,it would have been easier for them to accept the situation as rape rather than female sexual awakening.
Hardy's intention was to portary woman as a sexual being in her own right.
Yes, I have been on the fence since reading this book in 2008...
You can't really tell whether it was rape in the modern sense or not. I suppose in the 19th century it was considered rape because a woman was not supposed to consent to something like that unless she was a sad case... She was not supposed to know about that kind of stuff even.
However, Kelby Lake is right that Alec has long started the seduction process before Tess is even aware of it. I can still remember, and that I found really shocking, that after she has left when she was sent on that errand for her parents, that Alec said to himself that 'she [was] a crummy girl', meaning of low value... So, there already respect was lacking. Of course Tess's mother goes for it.
I don't know if Tess had an idea though... It would be in line with Naturalism if she had not. It would make the story even sadder and that kind of people often crop up in Naturalist stories because they walk in -to their own misfortune with their eyes wide open. It makes you as a reader feel that life is pointless. I had the impression that Tess's mother pretty much presented her on a silver plate in the hope that Alec would provide for them I think. However, whether Tess knew about that is the question. Girls back then were not so knowing when it came to that as girls are now. I mean, some of them didn't know what was going to happen on their wedding nght, and they gave their consent to marry, of all things! My mother (born in 1949) knew that babies came out of her mother's belly only because her mother told her. Her aunts found that vile and kept going on about the cabages. There were the wildest rumours about wedding nights. Some of them were so horrendous that it moved girls to drug themselves with chloroform and tell the groom the get on with it.
I have the impression that Tess reproaches her mother later for not telling her what Alec had in mind. Knowing that, she would have made it clear from the start. But, it was not to happen.
Thinking of that, she might have consented to a kiss and gone further than she wanted in that wood. Even if it was not really rape (she crying 'no' and he forcing her anyway) and she kind of went along with it not really knowing what was happening, she must have regretted it afterwards and so it is kind of rape as he didn't ask her permission to do so explicitly (as it is outside wedlock)...
It is all pretty difficult, but if the woman was supposed to be this naïve creature, then she was raped yes. Still, I feel sadder about it as Tess doesn't even seem to know what has happened to her until later...
Even I think what makes it so unfortunate and unfair is her innocence, or rather ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
But I would prefer 'seduced' if I really had to choose to term it. And I believe what happened to Tess would remain as hideous and unfair even if it isn't called 'rape'.
I believe when returning back to her home with Alec she tells him about how she loaths herself for her weakness and much more because she does not really love him. Then she says: "My eyes were dazed by you for a little, and that was all." And she also added later "I didn't understand your meaning till it was too late."
I don't think any violence was involved so I would say 'seduced'. Then again it depends on the perspective. I consider violence or threat implicit as far as rape is considered.
Besides I don't think it really would make a difference how it is termed. Especially, I don't see how it has anything to do with Tess being a 'Pure Woman'. If being raped or seduced made a difference to Hardy he would have made it clear that she was raped. That would have settled the question. It wasn't too difficult making it clear in suggestion if he did not have the freedom to be explicit about it.
Indeed Alec took advantage of her (symbolically the strawberries he feeds her are 'out of season'). However to deny that she was not at all flattered or never felt any physical attraction to him at all seems rather unbelievable. The 'cruelty of lust' does not need to apply solely to Alec's mistreatment of her but perhaps to Tess in her blindness to see Alec's actual intentions back then.
I think Hardy's initial intention for the scene might have been to have Alec as 'a mistake'- that Tess alowed herself to be seduced too early. However the readers of the time would have been less likely to sympathise with her so Hardy has to make it rape, eradicating Tess' blame. Her martyrdom adds to the reader's sense that she is in no way to blame.
But Hardy doesn't fully commit to the idea of having a pretty innocent girl be raped. Maybe because of his fixation on Tess' beauty and figure, he sets up a seduction, making Tess partly complicit in her misfortune. Therefore it is a very muddled area- Hardy cannot decide whether it is the rape of an innocent or the manipulation of sexual curiosity. Either choice would have made a powerful novel- were it actually a pure rape, Hardy would not need to overdo the martyrdom and the reader would sympathise with Tess entirely. Granted, it would make Angel's rejection of her incredibly cruel and Hardy may not have been able to redeem him.
If it was a manipulation, that would have been a truly feminist approach and a proper attack on double standards. It also means that Alec's character could have been developed more and there would be a genuine conflict, not simply a looming melodramatic villain. It then makes Angel a hypocrite but not cruel.
I can't agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
This, although, is a great point. At least for me this answers the question why Hardy didn't just make it clear she was raped. Thanks for pointing this out.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
The thing is I'm not really getting your point. It's like thinking aloud. I'm rather confused by the 'if', 'but' and 'however's.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Basically, if it had been an ultimately consential seduction, albeit misguided, that would have been a gutsier attack at double standards. Hardy presents Tess as a sensual figure so why not commit fully to that? Alec's character could have been developed so he wasn't just a 2D villain and Angel would come off as hypocritical, denouncing Tess for what he did himself, but he wouldn't come off as cruel.
wow controversial thread, a lot of people seem to have gotten in trouble for commenting on this one..
I've got an alternative reality question for you hardy fans, relates to 'The Return of the Native' (and yes I know this is the Tess forum); What about Susan Nonsuch murdering Eustacia? Anyone ever read it that way?
I bring it up because I'm a filmmaker, I've shot an American adaptation of Return and I guess I'd like to get some feedback on it before I start to shop it around.. maybe this isn't the forum, but if not here, then I don't know where..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O1n1PSkj58
I'm curious if anyone finds it recognizably ROTN from the trailer..
In 19th century England, the idea that a woman could be 'pure'/'innocent' but not a virgin, or even just have feelings of lust, was inconceivable. It's unclear whether Hardy could have written an ultimately consential scene but chose not to, or whether he didn't believe that consent would still make Tess innocent.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake