HARDY FORUM ARCHIVE HO3004 1/31/03 "HARDY'S TRUE VILLAINS"
==========================================================

From: "Gary Alderson" <Gary.Alderson@btinternet.com>
Subject: True villains?
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:47:05 -0000


A while back, having read Tess, I came to the conclusion that it was Angel who really needed a kick up the backside. Now, halfway through ROTN for the fifth or so time, I'm starting to realise that it's Mrs Yeobright who's getting on my nerves. If she'd only stop telling people what to do, there wouldn't be all this trouble.... I suppose the thing with Alec is that he's a pantomime sort of villain, whereas Angel's supposed to be the bright free-thinker with the new morality; but it's Angel who really lets Tess, and his own principles down. Wildeve and Eustacia just seem to be under the spell of their hormones, whereas Mrs Yeobright consistenly drags everyone else down around her and does stupid things like sending small fortunes off in the care of the village idiot. Maybe it's the difference between what people could have been and what they actually achieved? Or maybe I'm looking at this in a 21st century way rather than understanding the environment the books were written in.

==========

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:32:29 -0700
Subject: True villains?
From: Joan Sheski <harrys@cnetco.com>


Oh Gary, write more! Wonderful! I'm with you about Angel; he's as shallow
as the paper in the books he reads, and so very comfortable in his world of
moral condemnation for Tess's painful journey of indiscretion while his own
dalliance, with an older woman no less, is conveniently downplayed. Clym is
quite similar in Native - he's got to stay safe with momma on the home turf
- can't handle the responsibilities of outside exposure, and passionate
love, that Eustacia calls for. These rulemakers don't exactly prosper, but
also don't come to enough grief to satisfy my impatience with them. Joan
Sheski

==========