Tess of the D’Urbervilles discussion

Not "pure" or not telling him sooner? I am a bit unclear. It seems based on the thesis of the whole book it was Tess's not "pure" resents him, but at one point in the book he said to himself something like this:"O Tess, I would forgive you if you told me sooner..."

Or maybe both. Either way, I am angry with his cruelty toward such a hopeless girl. I wish Tess never forgives him and just live her own life and finds someone deserves her more.

I'm not sure there's a definitive answer to that, at least from the Watsonian point of view. Everyone will have a biased opinion of Angel Clare and his motivations, according to how each reader "felt" the story.

My personal feeling was that Angel, at that point, was full of shit. He wouldn't have "forgiven" her (and note that he had nothing to forgive, but let's fly with Victorian crap and assume he did) if she had told him sooner; he would have never married her. He didn't tell her about his own little sin sooner either.

I don't know for sure, from the Doylist point of view, how Hardy thought of Angel and his motivations, but I think his point there was that they were both in the exact same situation, Angel and Tess, both did the same thing, both confessed at the same time... and he could not "forgive" her. That's why I didn't believe Angel -going back to Watsonian- that he would have acted differently, had Tess told him sooner.

Laura wrote: "I'm not sure there's a definitive answer to that, at least from the Watsonian point of view. Everyone will have a biased opinion of Angel Clare and his motivations, according to how each reader "fe..."

Good point Laura! How interesting you mentioned "Watsonian" and "Doylist" views. You are totally right to say that there's nothing to forgive... heartbreaking story.

Having said what I said earlier, I am still glad that Tess finally got a few days happiness with her love.

Thank you. I got used to those terms for meaning "in universe" versus "as plot device", or something like that.

He was a narrow minded pseudo intelectual who found hard to understand she could have been 'polluted' without being actually 'corrupted'.

Carolina wrote: "He was a narrow minded pseudo intelectual who found hard to understand she could have been 'polluted' without being actually 'corrupted'."

well put Carolina! indeed! if i were Tess i would never forgive him!(still angry at him. lol)

I think it is because Tess continued to have sex with Alec d'Urberville for several weeks after her seduction/rape, whether through infatuation or in exchange for the horse.

Victorian morals: it was okay and sometimes expected and accepted for men to have pre and extra-marital sex and embrace their sexuality. The same behavior in women was not accepted, for various reasons. One being that the man needed to be sure his children were legitimate to pass down property, titles, etc., as well as women were expected to be pure (women aren't sexual creatures). Hardy points out the hypocrisy of his society with having Angel and Tess engage in the same behavior (premarital sex), with different societal responses. I also believe the evidence is there that Tess was raped by Alec (some people debate this); I argue that Tess never consents to sex, which = rape. Alec took advantage of her while she was sleeping. Rape still equals a fallen woman by Victorian standards, so the context surrounding Angel and Tess's sexual history also adds a layer of complexity to this issue for Hardy. Tess also had a child by Alec, which further upset Angel's ego and shows the societal values. "You might have been 16 at the time and forced, but oof, you had a KID?? That's a no-go." Since Tess had a child out of wedlock, she can never "belong" to Angel per societal values/beliefs. Recall that Angel (and Alec) makes a statement that Alec is Tess's husband in the sight of God because he took her virginity. Angel's name is ironic. Yes, he *eventually* "forgives" Tess, but not until it was too late. He couldn't and didn't save her. Sad that we still debate this over 100 years later; at the same time it also speaks to the timelessness of the novel.