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

[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.