Printable View
I am within the last ten chapters but I think it will be hard to read them. Poor Tess, I don't want to discover what that horrible Mr Hardy has in store for her. I think I would rather the rest of the book be a complete anticlimax in which Angel comes back next chapter and tells her, "I don't care about all that. Let's all move to a farm in East Anglia."
Keep going, Kev67! It's a great book and you won't be disappointed - that's all I'm going to say. ;)
Well, there is some light at the end of the tunnle, that's certain.
It is definitely a good book, but it is hard to read to the end.
SPOILER
Well that's done it! Annoyingly I have already picked up that Tess would be executed for killing someone, but I figured it would be a mercy killing of Angel. Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap, although as rich, wastrel rapists go, Alec was not all bad. All the same, given his lapse of faith and sinful ways, he should now be roasting nicely for the rest of eternity.
Nice bit of detective work by Angel in tracking her down too.
I have about three chapters left. I think I can safely read the next one in a public place, but will have to read the final two at home in case of blubbing.
Tess seems to have gone potty. Up to now she has been intelligent, responsible, considerate and consciencious to a fault. Now she's just killed someone and run after Angel, apparently thinking that Angel might love her now she's killed Alec. She's never been the least bit unstable or impulsive before. It's as if she's a different person.
I made the mistake of reading the penultimate chapter in the canteen. I had to leave the building because a sudden attack of hay fever made my eyes water.
I have to say, I lost some respect for Tess in the last three chapters. Before I admired her fortitude, her industriousness, her conscientiousness and her selflessness. All her other problems and woes were the result of an unbelievable concatenation of bad breaks or understandable human failings. However she was responsible for her own ultimate downfall in the end. Did she have to knife Alec to death? Although it was a spur of the moment act, it seems implied that she killed him thinking it would at least buy her a bit of time with Angel, even knowing that she would probably be executed for it. Izz Huett said Tess would die for Angel and so it proved. Tess may have sensed that although Angel would not want her back permanently after being Alec's mistress, that he was unlikely to abandon her to the police. She should have worked that out by then that Angel just was not worth it. He certainly wasn't worth sicking on her sister. Tess seems to have totally internalised Angel's opinions of sexual purity, religion and everything else without ever thinking for herself whether they were right, fair or consistent. To her, he could do no wrong.
Although she had good reason for hating Alec, it was still wrong to murder him. Tess can't blame Alec for telling her that Angel wasn't going to come back to her. She knew Alec did not know any better than she. Alec wasn't worth being hanged for either. If Tess had committed that act today, she would not have been executed and may only have been convicted for manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, but she would still rightly have spent a long time in prison.
It seems a bit out of character too. She struck Alec before, but that was not much. Other than Angel, Tess's main motivation was her family. She is sleeping with a man she despises because her family had nowhere to live and no income. If she made a conscious decision to kill Alec, she must have also known that her family would be back out on the streets. Alec isn't going to continue paying their rent after he's dead, and Angel is unlikely to either.
The killing of Alec and the end of the story is puzzling and disturbing. Hardy has been so acute and insightful throughout the novel we can't be satisfied just thinking Tess snapped in the moment. We have to believe there's something thoughtful in her actions that's important to making sense of the story.
One possible explanation is that when Angel returned Tess realized she could never find happiness in life or even comfort. She doesn't believe a happy marriage with Angel is possible thinking he'll reject her once again. On the other hand, she can't endure staying with Alec knowing the love of her life is back and seeking reunion with her. Realizing she's completely boxed in misery, she kills Alec in a state of rage. (Hardy may want to remind of of the d'Urberville legend of the crime committed in the coach). Alec is the target of her violence but he's merely the agent of her cruel fate, the ultimate villain.
The question then is why Tess feels Angel will reject her again. I have two theories. One is that she's pregnant again with Alec's child, but so early that it's not showing. Once Angel realizes her condition she reasonable believes Angel simply won't accept it or her. The other theory is that Tess isn't pregnant but during the separation she's gathered a realistic understanding of Angel and how he loves her. She realizes Angel is a narrow person, despite what he might wish, and she can never become the ideal or illusion of womanhood he needs in a wife. Of the two explanations, I think Hardy would prefer the second.
Rather than Tess departing the novel as crazy, Hardy would want her to leave a more insightful, stronger and a more admirable person. That's been a theme of her character. Angel, in contrast, leaves the book a weaker and less impressive person than ever.
Finally, setting Angel up with Liza-Lu demonstrates Tess's thoughtfulness. It gives Liza-Lu a social advance and marriage to a well-intended man as opposed to falling prey to another Alec type. It provides Tess's family not only an avenue to subsistence but some badly needed moral guidance from Angel's dad. Lastly, Angel gets an excellent life partner in Liza-Lu who'll provide him strength and realism needed because he lacks both. In Liza-Lu Angel will find no impediment to reject. In a way, the story ends hopefully.
I think those sorts of thoughts were running through her head, but she may not have stabbed Alec had he not said something insensitive at the wrong time. I think it was a spur of the moment action although foreshadowed by Tess's previous violent actions on him. She hit him once in the church iirc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maple
I read somewhere that Hardy thought that Angel would in time come to taunt Tess for returning to Alec d'Urberville, just as Tess suspects.Quote:
The question then is why Tess feels Angel will reject her again. I have two theories. One is that she's pregnant again with Alec's child, but so early that it's not showing. Once Angel realizes her condition she reasonable believes Angel simply won't accept it or her. The other theory is that Tess isn't pregnant but during the separation she's gathered a realistic understanding of Angel and how he loves her. She realizes Angel is a narrow person, despite what he might wish, and she can never become the ideal or illusion of womanhood he needs in a wife. Of the two explanations, I think Hardy would prefer the second.
I don't think I agree with that. She did murder someone after all. Alec was not all bad. Tess had been so conscientious, hard working and self-sacrificing. Then she threw it all away. I don't think Angel deserves to be indulged with a nice, new, unblemished version of Tess, and is anyway rather poor at taking moral guidance.Quote:
Rather than Tess departing the novel as crazy, Hardy would want her to leave a more insightful, stronger and a more admirable person. That's been a theme of her character. Angel, in contrast, leaves the book a weaker and less impressive person than ever.
Finally, setting Angel up with Liza-Lu demonstrates Tess's thoughtfulness. It gives Liza-Lu a social advance and marriage to a well-intended man as opposed to falling prey to another Alec type. It provides Tess's family not only an avenue to subsistence but some badly needed moral guidance from Angel's dad. Lastly, Angel gets an excellent life partner in Liza-Lu who'll provide him strength and realism needed because he lacks both. In Liza-Lu Angel will find no impediment to reject. In a way, the story ends hopefully.
BTW, nice to meet you, Maple.
Tess is capable of violence, perhaps a trait from her d'Urberville lineage, but it's neither consistent with her character nor Hardy's intentions to explain her act of murder as a moment of insanity. My take is that her act of murder was intended as suicide. She knew her remaining life would be brief and didn't want it longer convinced that Angel would soon despise her following their reunion. This impression was supported by her relative listlessness when she and Angel are on the lam. At Stonehenge she claim exhaustion but she's in robust health while Angel, who wants to continue, is physically a wreck from sickness in Brazil. It's not physical fatigue that's exhausted Tess but having finally conceded defeat in her fight against fate. Moreover, she really is glad to go because she realizes the world simply holds no more opportunity for her happiness.
I doubt she thought it out as clearly as that. If she had, she would have been a cold blooded murderer. It would be a desparate plan because Angel had been gone some time before she stabbed Alec, and Tess could not have been sure she could find him. She must have guessed Angel was walking to the station. Once she caught up with him she could not have predicted for sure what Angel's reaction would be. I guess when she stabbed Alec, Tess did not care what would happen to her and thought on the hoof after that. The hotel keeper, eavesdropping at the door, heard her moan to herself about her husband for a while, then heard Alec say something unkind, then some sort of commotion.
That's an interesting theory, about the d'Urberville blood. I had forgotten about that detail, but it might well be significant.
I think the reason why Alec was killed by Tess in a fit of rage was because Tess didn't want to be with Alec anymore (who would?), but could not really decide to leave him. As long as he's alive, Alec's existence is going to hover over her life, as it were. Since he raped her or they had a fling in the woods (whatever it may be), he has never left her life. Although their child has died, she got married and she spent some time alone for a while, he always crops up somewhere. She can't escape him and he can't seem to be able to do without her. No matter what his good intentions might be. It is either be with Alec for ever more, which she doesn't want, or the ultimate solution, which will end her life too. Unless she is clever, but we can't pretend she was ever capable of that. Ending her life probably seems the best way to get rid of all te misery for her. Besides, who says that she'll be rid of Alec's eternal presence once he has died? Maybe he'll stay in her mind.
Angel might have reconsidered (you never know what love can do), so even though she might have felt unsure about Angel's consistency afterwards, I think she kills Alec for herself rather than for him. Their conversation in the parlour of that hotel or boarding house also points to the sad reality that she feels she cannot leave Alec, despite Angel practically pleading. She appears as a ghost from the underworld and that's probably where she is and will remain: she is in an eternal hell. She can't get out and has to keep doing what she doesn't want until the end of her days (in this case) because of this one naive mistake years and years ago.
You are both right about her death. Once she is free from Alec, she knows it is going to end soon because the police will come after her. Maybe it is a way of committing suicide (she goes on about that all through the novel), which she did not have the courage to do herself.
In my mind the last few sentences where it becomes apparent that Angel and Liza-Lu will later marry are extremely sad. Both will feel they owe it to Tess and they will have got used to each other, but they will not consider doing anything else than marry each other. At some point in their lives, they will realise that they are not cut out for each other, have nothing in common, don't love each other and are merely united because they both thought they owed it to Tess. That's a very bleak existence.for them to come. Angel is too sad about Tess to see that he has no marital duty towards Liza-Lu and Liza-Lu is too naïve and young a girl to see what it means to involve yourself with a man that age. She'll grow used to him and think she loves him (he'lll be more of a father for her than a husband), only to realise later that love is something else. In the other case, she will know before she marries that she doesn't love him, but will do so anyway, making her extremely unhappy.
Thinking about that, it reminds me of Sue and Mr Phillotson's marriage in Jude teh Obscure. At least she is unhappy. He maybe not, but he has spent most of his life alone, so he likes the company and the hanky-panky from time to time, I presume. She sees it as her duty. Imagine spending the rest of your life like that: nothing to talk about, eternal quietness during those long evenings, no tenderness (maybe attentiveness from his side, although that might go once he doesn't get any reaction anymore) and monotony. Not that your husband is cruel or anything, but your life must then be so utterly meaningless.
Well, I, for one, can agree to disagree on why Tess killed Alec. My interest in finding a plausible theory is mainly so I gather meaning from the novel, i.e. what did Tess's life ultimately mean and what lessons can be taken from it. We can assume that Hardy had in mind a certain meanings in Tess, yet he left such uncertainty in his plot turns as to torture readers like us. Noodling over these puzzles probably hasn't reduced the value of the novel for us and probably kept us probing the novel so as to better appreciate it. As much meaning as there is in the plot and particularly in Tess, I found more meaning in the poetic descriptions that Hardy applied to the story. His sensory and imaginative description of summer at Talthobay's was considered by D H Lawrence, I've read, to be virtually unequaled in all English literature.
If one reads Hardy mainly for plot, and I'm not saying any of us has, I think you miss most of the value in his novels. Decades ago when I first read Jude and Tess, I read them for plot. Both made me a bit sad but neither made much impact on me. Rereading them again as a much older man, this time savoring the narrative as much as the plot, it seemed as if I'd never read the books before and the impact was enormous. I'd say plot is the weakest element of Hardy's novels.
Yes, I liked other aspects of the book more than the plot. I thought the character descriptions were superb. Characters like Dairyman Crick, Tess's parents and Angel's parents seemed so real, I felt as if I was in the room with them. The summer at the dairy sounded such a happy time. I agree too that Hardy did leave some things left unexplained deliberately to puzzle us. In particular, what exactly happened that night when Alec either raped or seduced Tess, whether she continued to have sex with Alec for a while afterwards, and what exactly were Angel's religious views that Tess reported to Alec, persuading him to give up his missionary work.
I love this novel. I subscribe to the whole d'Urberville blood being part of the reason for stabbing Alec- this is after all Tess of The D'Urbervilles.
A lot of fatal mistakes are made in Hardy's novels. I don't think Tess killed Alec in cold blood but as a desperate impulsive mistake. Perhaps there was an element of self-loathing as well- Alec represented that stain on her purity that prevented her being with Angel.
I don't find Alec unsympathetic. I think the key to this is his mother, who significantly is blind, preferring her birds over her son. As Alec has not grown up knowing love, he persues lust instead. He is incapable of love because he has never been shown any. The only point where he might have shown love towards Tess is after he has destroyed her.
You might be right about what crippled Alec's ability to love, but if we're going to address how the novel's character's had their personalities formed we would naturally want to wonder first about Tess. Here's a poor peasant girl living near subsistence reared by two irresponsible and dissolute parents. How did she come to have such a astoundingly admirable qualities and intentions? The practical explanation is that Hardy wasn't preoccupied with the psychology of personality formation. His interest was in telling a certain kind of story for which he needed characters to do certain things with certain motives.
It's natural for readers to love Tess as a kind of womanly ideal mortally wronged by her social and economic circumstances. It's stranger that Hardy, who created this character largely out of his own imagination, came to love the fictitious person he imagined. The longer I think about this book the most profound mystery of it all is Hardy himself.
People didn't really think about psychology as such back then. This was before Freud. Besides, I can think of very few novels that are entirely practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maple
Tess is shown to be a spiritual woman. She is ethereal, at one with nature. The psychology of personality doesn't matter. If you want to add it though, you could say that her personality is formed as the complete opposite of her parents, reactionary.