I read Tess of the D'Urbervilles several weeks ago, but it left a strong impression on me, so I feel comfortable reviewing it now. This was one of those unexpected purchases. I had gone to Waldenbooks, trying to find at least one of the books that my book club was reading. No such luck, which tells me that Waldenbooks is failing as a book supplier. Anyway, I needed something to read, so I took a browse through the "Classics" section to see if anything caught my eye. For some reason, Tess did, so I decided to give it a try.
I have mixed feelings about this book. Before reading it, I was vaguely familiar with the basic storyline, so I knew what to expect there. I also took the time to read the Introduction, which explained some of Hardy's history and also indicated how readers of Hardy's day would have received the book. All very good and helpful. What I didn't know, however, is that my own reaction would be so confused.
For a little background, the basic idea of the story is that Tess Durbeyfield is a young country girl who is raped, has a baby (it dies), and then spends the rest of her life searching for some kind of justice in the world. Of course, she doesn't find it, making her all the more the tragic heroine. She is seen by all as a "fallen woman," which is ridiculous because she was young, naive, and taken advantage of. The back of the book reads, "In Tess, a woman vicitimized by lust, poverty, and hypocrisy, Thomas Hardy created no standard Victorian heroine, but a woman whose intense vitality flares unforgettably against the bleak background of a dying rural society." And you can guess how the modern interpreter would have us read this book. It's the perfect example of what was wrong in the patriarchal Victorian society and explains why women fought so hard for their rights. All right, I can go with that. To some extent, I agree. I'm no fan of the Victorian world, which was notoriously white-washed by the image of the "domestic goddess." I have no interest in returning to a day when women couldn't vote, couldn't own property, had no custody rights of their children, couldn't get decent jobs, etc. Thank God for modern conveniences and modern ideas. If people choose to make bad choices, they should live with the moral, emotional, and spiritual consequences but shouldn't necessarily be ostracized as a result. If a woman is raped, I'm grateful that there is justice in our world (at least in our country), and her attacker will be hunted down and punished, while she won't be held morally accountable.
To avoid having this turn into my philippic against Victorianism, I'll stop here and return to reviewing the book. Tess is a poor girl whose family has little money. She is one of the few in her social group blessed with a natural intelligence, so the job of keeping her family afloat is placed on her. Tess's father hears that he is actually the last descendant of a very ancient line--the D'Urbervilles--which has become corrupted over the centuries. He hears about some other D'Urbervilles nearby, and Tess is sent out to extend the family's greeting. What occurs as a result is truly sad. It turns out the the other D'Urbervilles are merely a wealthy merchant family that has purchased the rights to the name. The eldest son of the family is a lustful miscreant who sets his sights on Tess and decides to violate her. The poor girl isn't more than sixteen and hasn't been warned about such people. She is somewhat resigned about what happens and returns to her family in time to have the child that Alec D'Urberville left her with. The baby dies, and Tess tries to move on, moving also away from her parents to work at a dairy farm. At the farm, Tess meets Angel Clare, an idealistic young gentleman who falls in love with her, believing her to be a pure and untainted example of the country people. Tess struggles with telling Angel the truth but believes (rightly, it turns out) that he will reject her. The two marry, and then Tess decides that she must tell her husband about her past. She does so, and he promptly leaves, convinced that he cannot divorce his new wife, but that he also cannot live with her. Alone and impoverished, Tess once again encounters Alec D'Urberville and allows herself to become his mistress. No sooner has she done this, but Angel returns to her and tells her that he wants them to live as husband and wife. Tess is horrified by what she has done and murders Alec D'Urbervilles (strangely, she is not horrified by this...). The book ends grimly with Tess execution.
I know it isn't customary to explain the entire storyline, even the ending, but this book is a classic and widely known; so I don't think I'm spoiling it for anyone. What is more, the story isn't so much about the mystery of what will happen to Tess. You know pretty much from the start that her life isn't going to be wonderful. Honestly, it's almost a relief when she dies, because her life has been so sorrowful. But that's the very thing that irritated me about this book. Yes, you feel for Tess, and you become angry that so many bad things should happen to her. But isn't that Hardy's goal? He created a story that was meant to open people's eyes about the realities of life and to make people angry that things like this happened. About halfway through, I began to feel as though I had been set up. Of course, I know it's just fiction, and Tess is meant to be a type; but the author has written the story in such a way that she gets no break. It's almost as though there is no hope for Tess from the very first. She is the sacrificial victim of literary heroines. Everything that could happen to her does. And the reader is meant to be there, every miserable step of the way.
But I felt that despite the pathos, there were things that Tess could have done and didn't. Obviously, the rape wasn't her fault, and the response of those who found out was absurd. Even her husband Angel argued that Alec was really her "husband" because he had slept with her. I'm sorry, but that's something no real husband would ever do, and I can't support the argument based on sexual contact alone. Apart from the rape and the consequent pregnancy, however, Tess made decisions that were hers alone. She chose not to tell Angel about what had happened to her until after they were married. Granted, he was responsible for his own reaction, but why on earth did she wait? She believed that he might leave her--why not give him the chance before the wedding instead of after it? Had she told him before, it might have given him time to get over it, and then they could have married. Yes, he might still have left, but at least she wouldn't be abandoned as a wife. Ultimately, Angel realized that he loved Tess for herself alone and not for the idea he had of her; he might have come to the same realization had she been honest with him up front. (Of course, there's always the option of not telling him at all, but I don't think that's worth considering. A marriage needs honesty; it's better to know the worst and accept it than to live a lie.)
Additionally, when Angel left he gave Tess a small amount of money and directed her to apply to his family when she needed more. Tess was too proud to get Angel's family involved, so she opted to live in poverty instead. Once more, her choice. As it turns out, his family would have been more than happy to help her and would have probably loved her more had they known of her situation. (His father was a minister with a heart for hurting people.) Finally--and this is where it gets a little trickier--Tess did not have to become Alec D'Urberville's mistress. Granted, she had no money and little hope of earning much. Her father was dead and her mother left with young children to support. D'Urberville offered to give them money in exchange for having Tess to himself. I can't say with certainty that I wouldn't have done the same thing, in such horrible circumstances. But I know for sure it was her choice to murder D'Urberville, and that she had no real reason to do so. Her only explanation was that he had lied to her and ruined her. Yes, he did, but all she had to do was walk away. Angel wanted her back and would have protected her. Murdering him did nothing but make her feel better, and that's never a good reason.
Reading Tess of the D'Urbervilles reminded me somewhat of a movie I had seen a while back called The Life of David Gale. It's a very intense movie, in which a man is executed for a crime he didn't commit. But as the story unfolds, you realize that there's more to it than just that. After watching that movie, I didn't think, "Wow, we really need to fix our justice system." I thought, "Wow, all this did was show that you can screw the justice system." I felt a little the same way after reading this book. Part of me felt for Tess; the other part was irritated that Hardy wanted me to feel for her, so he basically set everything up that way. Tess has no chance to rise from the ashes, to better herself, and to have a good ending. Now, I'm sure there are many people like that in the world. But if Hardy hoped that I would feel sorry for Tess because of everything that happened to her, he would be mistaken. I still think the element of choice was too strong in the book.
Before I finish, I should mention that I also took issue with Hardy's portrayal of religion in the book. The Christians are shown in a very negative light, while a more naturalistic faith is shown in a positive way. Tess is good because she is connected to nature, which is also good, because...it's nature? I don't know, but I didn't care for how Hardy depicted Christianity. Yes, there are bad representatives of the faith in the world, but that doesn't mean the faith itself is wrong.
Overall, I recommend this book, because it does have elements that remind us of what life was really like for the lower classes in this period of England's history. At the same time, take it with a grain of salt. Hardy is a romantic writer, and I think he got too carried away with the romanticism of creating a tragic heroine. All that aside, Tess is a fascinating figure, and I would agree that she has an "intense vitality" that keeps the book very interesting. Just don't expect a good ending.
I have mixed feelings about this book. Before reading it, I was vaguely familiar with the basic storyline, so I knew what to expect there. I also took the time to read the Introduction, which explained some of Hardy's history and also indicated how readers of Hardy's day would have received the book. All very good and helpful. What I didn't know, however, is that my own reaction would be so confused.
For a little background, the basic idea of the story is that Tess Durbeyfield is a young country girl who is raped, has a baby (it dies), and then spends the rest of her life searching for some kind of justice in the world. Of course, she doesn't find it, making her all the more the tragic heroine. She is seen by all as a "fallen woman," which is ridiculous because she was young, naive, and taken advantage of. The back of the book reads, "In Tess, a woman vicitimized by lust, poverty, and hypocrisy, Thomas Hardy created no standard Victorian heroine, but a woman whose intense vitality flares unforgettably against the bleak background of a dying rural society." And you can guess how the modern interpreter would have us read this book. It's the perfect example of what was wrong in the patriarchal Victorian society and explains why women fought so hard for their rights. All right, I can go with that. To some extent, I agree. I'm no fan of the Victorian world, which was notoriously white-washed by the image of the "domestic goddess." I have no interest in returning to a day when women couldn't vote, couldn't own property, had no custody rights of their children, couldn't get decent jobs, etc. Thank God for modern conveniences and modern ideas. If people choose to make bad choices, they should live with the moral, emotional, and spiritual consequences but shouldn't necessarily be ostracized as a result. If a woman is raped, I'm grateful that there is justice in our world (at least in our country), and her attacker will be hunted down and punished, while she won't be held morally accountable.
To avoid having this turn into my philippic against Victorianism, I'll stop here and return to reviewing the book. Tess is a poor girl whose family has little money. She is one of the few in her social group blessed with a natural intelligence, so the job of keeping her family afloat is placed on her. Tess's father hears that he is actually the last descendant of a very ancient line--the D'Urbervilles--which has become corrupted over the centuries. He hears about some other D'Urbervilles nearby, and Tess is sent out to extend the family's greeting. What occurs as a result is truly sad. It turns out the the other D'Urbervilles are merely a wealthy merchant family that has purchased the rights to the name. The eldest son of the family is a lustful miscreant who sets his sights on Tess and decides to violate her. The poor girl isn't more than sixteen and hasn't been warned about such people. She is somewhat resigned about what happens and returns to her family in time to have the child that Alec D'Urberville left her with. The baby dies, and Tess tries to move on, moving also away from her parents to work at a dairy farm. At the farm, Tess meets Angel Clare, an idealistic young gentleman who falls in love with her, believing her to be a pure and untainted example of the country people. Tess struggles with telling Angel the truth but believes (rightly, it turns out) that he will reject her. The two marry, and then Tess decides that she must tell her husband about her past. She does so, and he promptly leaves, convinced that he cannot divorce his new wife, but that he also cannot live with her. Alone and impoverished, Tess once again encounters Alec D'Urberville and allows herself to become his mistress. No sooner has she done this, but Angel returns to her and tells her that he wants them to live as husband and wife. Tess is horrified by what she has done and murders Alec D'Urbervilles (strangely, she is not horrified by this...). The book ends grimly with Tess execution.
I know it isn't customary to explain the entire storyline, even the ending, but this book is a classic and widely known; so I don't think I'm spoiling it for anyone. What is more, the story isn't so much about the mystery of what will happen to Tess. You know pretty much from the start that her life isn't going to be wonderful. Honestly, it's almost a relief when she dies, because her life has been so sorrowful. But that's the very thing that irritated me about this book. Yes, you feel for Tess, and you become angry that so many bad things should happen to her. But isn't that Hardy's goal? He created a story that was meant to open people's eyes about the realities of life and to make people angry that things like this happened. About halfway through, I began to feel as though I had been set up. Of course, I know it's just fiction, and Tess is meant to be a type; but the author has written the story in such a way that she gets no break. It's almost as though there is no hope for Tess from the very first. She is the sacrificial victim of literary heroines. Everything that could happen to her does. And the reader is meant to be there, every miserable step of the way.
But I felt that despite the pathos, there were things that Tess could have done and didn't. Obviously, the rape wasn't her fault, and the response of those who found out was absurd. Even her husband Angel argued that Alec was really her "husband" because he had slept with her. I'm sorry, but that's something no real husband would ever do, and I can't support the argument based on sexual contact alone. Apart from the rape and the consequent pregnancy, however, Tess made decisions that were hers alone. She chose not to tell Angel about what had happened to her until after they were married. Granted, he was responsible for his own reaction, but why on earth did she wait? She believed that he might leave her--why not give him the chance before the wedding instead of after it? Had she told him before, it might have given him time to get over it, and then they could have married. Yes, he might still have left, but at least she wouldn't be abandoned as a wife. Ultimately, Angel realized that he loved Tess for herself alone and not for the idea he had of her; he might have come to the same realization had she been honest with him up front. (Of course, there's always the option of not telling him at all, but I don't think that's worth considering. A marriage needs honesty; it's better to know the worst and accept it than to live a lie.)
Additionally, when Angel left he gave Tess a small amount of money and directed her to apply to his family when she needed more. Tess was too proud to get Angel's family involved, so she opted to live in poverty instead. Once more, her choice. As it turns out, his family would have been more than happy to help her and would have probably loved her more had they known of her situation. (His father was a minister with a heart for hurting people.) Finally--and this is where it gets a little trickier--Tess did not have to become Alec D'Urberville's mistress. Granted, she had no money and little hope of earning much. Her father was dead and her mother left with young children to support. D'Urberville offered to give them money in exchange for having Tess to himself. I can't say with certainty that I wouldn't have done the same thing, in such horrible circumstances. But I know for sure it was her choice to murder D'Urberville, and that she had no real reason to do so. Her only explanation was that he had lied to her and ruined her. Yes, he did, but all she had to do was walk away. Angel wanted her back and would have protected her. Murdering him did nothing but make her feel better, and that's never a good reason.
Reading Tess of the D'Urbervilles reminded me somewhat of a movie I had seen a while back called The Life of David Gale. It's a very intense movie, in which a man is executed for a crime he didn't commit. But as the story unfolds, you realize that there's more to it than just that. After watching that movie, I didn't think, "Wow, we really need to fix our justice system." I thought, "Wow, all this did was show that you can screw the justice system." I felt a little the same way after reading this book. Part of me felt for Tess; the other part was irritated that Hardy wanted me to feel for her, so he basically set everything up that way. Tess has no chance to rise from the ashes, to better herself, and to have a good ending. Now, I'm sure there are many people like that in the world. But if Hardy hoped that I would feel sorry for Tess because of everything that happened to her, he would be mistaken. I still think the element of choice was too strong in the book.
Before I finish, I should mention that I also took issue with Hardy's portrayal of religion in the book. The Christians are shown in a very negative light, while a more naturalistic faith is shown in a positive way. Tess is good because she is connected to nature, which is also good, because...it's nature? I don't know, but I didn't care for how Hardy depicted Christianity. Yes, there are bad representatives of the faith in the world, but that doesn't mean the faith itself is wrong.
Overall, I recommend this book, because it does have elements that remind us of what life was really like for the lower classes in this period of England's history. At the same time, take it with a grain of salt. Hardy is a romantic writer, and I think he got too carried away with the romanticism of creating a tragic heroine. All that aside, Tess is a fascinating figure, and I would agree that she has an "intense vitality" that keeps the book very interesting. Just don't expect a good ending.
4 comments:
I just wanted you to know that I read your blog! I just never have time to write an intelligent comment!
(Yes, you induce all of us to use our brains and THINK!)
Thanks B!
Love!
Sky
Thank you so much, Sky! I sometimes wonder if I'm just writing for myself (but it's fun anyway). Sorry I missed you in VA. It turns out we were there around the time you were leaving.
Thanks for the review and for participating in my Saturday round-up.
I've read several of Hardy's books, but never Tess. Maybe I'll take a look at it.
It really is an interesting story, more so I think because of the controversial elements. While I didn't agree with what Hardy was doing in places, I was definitely interested that he chose to look at the underbelly of English society rather than at the upper crust. In many ways, it's a very honest portrayal of a difficult way of life.
Post a Comment