HARDY FORUM ARCHIVE H03050 6/5/03 "ALEC VERSUS ANGEL"
=====================================================
From: "ramzy raouf" ramzy_raouf@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:34:59 +0000
Subject: Unidentified subject!


why tess in " tess of the d' urbervilles " favoured angel instead of alec
while angel abandoned her & left her to distitution when alec helped her &
her family ?
can anybody make an explanation to this behaviour

==========

Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:53:46 -0400
From: Shannon Rogers <srogers@mailhost.sju.edu>
Subject: Alec vs. Angel


Dear Ramzy,

While I tend to think that Angel is not worthy of Tess either, despite
Hardy's indications at times that he is the
ideal man for her (a debate in itself), he is the better man. He is
confused by the conflict between his modern
sensibilities and the reality that is Tess, which forces him to stand by
those sensibilities and not just pay lip
service to them. This does not make him a bad man, just an immature
one. He does grow up by the end of
the book, showing that he is not entirely selfish. He also left her money
so that she would not be in dire straits--
she gave the money to her parents and it is Tess's pride alone that
prevents her from asking his parents for
more, when he made it clear that she might do so.

Alec, on the other hand, is callow, self-centered, and cruel. At the very
least, he took sexual advantage of her
while she was exhausted and defenseless, "ruining" her by her day's
standards (by modern standards, we would
argue that he raped her). He attempted to make her feel beholden to him by
providing for her family--using her
guilt and sense of responsibility against her in order to dominate her
sexually/romantically (by modern day standards,
I guess that would make him guilty of sexual harrassment!). Yes, he is a
good provider. Yes, he does nice things
for her family. But does that make him a good mate, or a good man? I
wouldn't want to date him and I don't think
that the end of having a better life for her family justifies the means.

At the basest level, we can also defer to the whims of love, in which there
is no rationale, only emotion. Tess preferred
the man she fell in love with, not the one who took her virginity and took
care of her family.

Cheers,
Shannon

==========

From: "Lori Skoller" <lori@skoller.com>
To Subject: RE: Unidentified subject!
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:00:59 -0400


Although Hardy doesn't come right out and say it, Alec raped Tess. That's
why she prefers Angel.

==========

From: Thudecki@cs.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:21:12 EDT
Subject: Re: Alec vs. Angel


Hello group!
I fully agree with Shannon. Tess was drawn to
Angel from the start of their first meeting. However, with Alec, Tess was
suspicious from the first meeting. After Alec took advantage of her she very much was
repulsive towards him and the memory of the event that lead to her ruin. From
that point, I believe she could never separate the guilt she felt and
associated with Alec. Man and event were basically fused as one terrible and stark
reality in her eyes. The advantage Alec took of Tess from the very start
continued with his manipulation of her, using her family circumstances to win her
over. Ofcourse we all know who won and who lost in the end. His shallow kindness
was like a second offense to Tess, and ultimately just as cruel, if not more
cruel by it's devious nature.

Spring
wishes,
Janine

==========

From: Thudecki@cs.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:01:15 EDT
Subject: Re: Alec vs. Angel


In further reference to what Shannon had said concerning Alec and Angel, I
think that Hardy showed Angel as very "human" with faults, self doubts,
confusion - yet his goodness showed through inspite of these character flaws. Alec, on
the other hand, is pretentious and phony. A fine example of this would be his
new found preaching, then his sudden abandonment of religious zest in order
to again pursue Tess. Obviously he was not sincere to himself or others. Angel
on the other hand was honest and sincere in his confusion and human flaws.
Tess, being the honest sincere soul she was she naturally recognised the good in
Angel. After the wedding and his iniatial confusion he needed the time to work
things out in his mind logically and get in touch with his deepest emotions.
This did seem cruel, but I do not think he could help his actions - He had
formed misconceptions about Tess and put her on a pedestal of his own imagining.
The sleep walking scene demonstrated the true feelings of pure love he
consciously could not reach in his waking hours. It seemed to me that he had a quiet
control of his own life generally, and suddenly he no longer did, when Tess
revealed her secret to him. This threw him quite off balance until he could
detach himself from the situation and see the whole picture of reality in a
clearer perpective.

Spring wishes,
Janine

==========

From: "hiroaki TAMURA" <h_tam_cr@yahoo.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Alec vs. Angel
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:48:43 -0600

Dear list members,

I don't think Alec is cruel. He loved Tess in his own way. His sudden zest
for religion and sudden abandonment come from his love for Tess.

According to the 2nd paragraph of chapter 12, Tess stayed in Trantridge
after the night in The Chase some few weeks, presumably almost as a
mistress. What suffered Tess most is not the event of the night in The Chase
but her submission to Alec for weeks, i.e. her weakness.

Where I feel Angel's cruelty most is the scene at Stonehenge. She asked him
whether they could meet again after death. He didn't reply and she knew that
it meant no! This is cruelty and pig-headedness itself.

I think TH writes more in favour of Alec than Angel.
Hiroaki Tamura
Fax to: (506)442-6072
Email to: h_tam_cr@yahoo.co.jp
Snail mail to: Apdo:2139-4050,
Alajuela, Costa Rica

==========

From: Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com
Subject: RE: Alec vs. Angel
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:49:34 -0500


It could be argued that way. Tess lives as Alec's mistress, bears his
child, then heartlessly deserts him, returning to her parents and separating
Alec from their child. And then she refuses Alec's kind offers of support
for her and their child, thus directly contributing, through her extravagant
pride, to Sorrow's death. As for that despicable Angel twit, he confesses
his indiscretions, but hypocritically refuses to forgive Tess hers.
Especially despicable, since if he cared so much about her chastity, he
should have directly questioned her on the point prior to marriage and
engaged for inquiries into her background. Clearly Tess was culpable here
as well, but at least she attempted a full disclosure in writing. All this
makes Alec look pretty good to me. Alec never judges Tess, and when Angel
deserts her, it is Alec who comes to her rescue. He gives her a much better
life as his mistress than she could have hoped for as the wife of a farm
laborer, which was her only proper marriage prospect in the first place.
Matter of fact, if she hadn't ended up in the chase with Alec, she would
have ended up there with one of the farm laborers, so she was better off
even in that event.

Of course, it could all be argued the other way, too.

Chuck Anesi
Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com
office 612-667-9518
pager 888-278-6532
cell 612-940-3345

**These opinions are strictly my own and not necessarily those of
Wellsfargo**

==========

From: Kathryn Esteris <k.l.esteris@durham.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Unidentified subject!
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:06:59 +0100

Dear Lori,

With all due respect, the scene is left, I believe, deliberately ambiguous. I think to say that Alec definitely raped Tess is to undermine Hardy's ability and skill. Nothing in the text is so straightforward as this imply. From the outset, Hardy shows us a Tess who flits between childhood and womanhood, always on the brink between the two. Even the subtitle of the text "A Pure Woman Faithfully Presented" is ambiguous. Does this imply that she is "pure" in the sense that she is untainted and virginal or is this a reference to the fact that she is purely "woman", with all of the sensual and sexual nuances such a label carries.

Tess remains at all times impossible to define: Tess Durbeyfield or Teresa of the d'Urbervilles. The text is set up to be questioned in this matter throughout. She is a woman of nature, but also a child of civilisation. Nothing is 'cut and dried', so to speak. I believe that the dilemma Tess faces is which of these men can actually meet her ever-wavering desires, and, truly, it can be neither of them, as they each combine the opposing factors to complement her self. Alec is desire combined with civilisation; Angel is innocence combined with nature. That, to me, is why she cannot really choose between them.

I hope that makes some sense!

Kathryn

==========

From: "ramzy raouf" <ramzy_raouf@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Alec vs. Angel
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:45:50 +0000



Dear Shannon

i agree to some extent with you , but i think that angel was to some
extent hyopcritical because he declared himself free_minded person , even
that he despised chrisianity & its principles & he was rebellious against
the conventions of the society & agreed to marry a farmergirl ( of course to
manage his future farm ). But instead he judged her according to the rotten
rules of society while she in the same instant forgave him for the same
fault & with all her naivity she thought herself may be forgiven because he
made the same fault ( at least she was raped , it was not by her own will )
. But if he acted according to the real sense of christianity which he
despised he wouldn't judge but would have forgiven her , but he acted under
the rules of the society .

I Know that tess acted under thw whim of love and chose the beloved one .
But i say that alec also loved her though he wronged her first , he even
left his religion because he loved her more than it . I suppose it is a
right thing for thr lover to try anything to win his love . So i think alec
was acting to win tess by helping her family in the hope of winning her
heart by time because he really loved her . so i think TH was in this novel
was showing to us the hypocrisy of some free_minded people like Angel Clare
.

Cheers ,
Ramzy

==========

Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:53:50 -0400
From: Shannon Rogers <srogers@mailhost.sju.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Alec vs. Angel

Dear Ramzy,

Oh, I agree. Angel is horribly hypocritical, but he is capable of change. I often wonder if Alec is
fundamentally capable of change at all. Angel does something horrible--he rejects Tess for the
same "sin" he committed himself. For Hardy, I believe the irony or tragedy of it all is that it
should never be considered a sin at all. What did Tess really do wrong? What, for that matter,
did Angel really do wrong? They each felt an attraction and acted on it. She, I think, was acted
upon, while Angel knew what was going on, but the entire scene in the Chase is left ambiguous
so that it's not violent (of course, in Hardy's time, there would not have been the same perception
of rape at all) and she remains with Alec about 3 weeks afterwards. She would not have been
beaten by shame if there weren't these silly and outdated restrictions on personal attractions and
natural urges.

That said, yes, I agree with you that Alec loved her, but it was his own definition of love. He doesn't
judge her (as someone else mentioned), that is true. But he dominates her. Love for him is possession.
It is ownership and domination, and holding her, not by her heart, but by her sense of responsibility.
Sure, he offers her a much better life, financially, than she might have had with one of the rural farm
laborers she would most likely have ended up with otherwise, but again, that's only financial. And if a
woman marries for financial gain, it's tantamount to prostitution. She is selling herself for money in
order to help herself, her potential children and her family. It happened all of the time in society, and
was never thought of in that way (and this same scenario appears graphically in The Hand of Ethelberta,
where Ethelberta must give up the man she loves for financial betterment through marriage to an old
man). This is the other side of Hardy's argument. Marriage is considered the only respectable option
for sex/attraction/romance, and most people wanted to "marry up". So, the natural way--following
attractions--is denigraded as immorality, and the respectable way--marrying for money, and basically
becoming a prostitute--is lauded as morally upright. Society is hopelessly out of synch with the natural
world, and bases itself on a medieval code of behavior, which is hopelessly out of synch with modernity.
In some ways, the "ache of modernism" that Tess feels is that grinding in the interstices between the
two worlds--one that can't quite be born and the other that refuses to die.

Angel in a sense personifies that conflict of worlds, and in the end the outcome is positive. He finally puts
his "medieval" prejudices behind him and moves forward. Alec, then, would represent the darker underside
of that conflict. He is from the middle class and so is the class of the future--the aristocracy is becoming
impoverished, morally and financially (the fall of the D'Urbervilles itself demonstrates this), and the middle
class has all of the cash and is gaining the power. Rather than putting aside outmoded ways of thinking and
being, Alec instead (though his family) takes on the trappings of nobility, with all of the attitudes that it
always meant in the past. So, while he does love Tess, he will never see her as an equal--there is no
modernity about him, other than in the social class revolution he represents. In terms of ideas, he is merely
an aristocratic throwback and so he must be violently killed in order for the new world to be born.

Cheers,
Shannon

==========

From: "Rarebks" <rarebks@clara.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Alec vs. Angel
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:48:24 +0100

Why, then, do you suppose did Tess go back to live with Alec? If he was so
repugnant, she didn't seem to have much difficulty having him provide for
her personally--that is, beyond his support of her family.
Steve Pastore

==========

Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 12:38:13 -0400
From: Shannon Rogers <srogers@mailhost.sju.edu>
Subject: Re: Alec vs. Angel


>>
>>Why, then, do you suppose did Tess go back to live with Alec? If he was so
>>repugnant, she didn't seem to have much difficulty having him provide for
>>her personally--that is, beyond his support of her family.
>>Steve Pastore

I always interpreted it that she was a broken woman by then. Her family was
destitute, homeless, her father (the peripatetic breadwinner) was dead, and
there
was no visible means of support forthcoming, Angel abandoned her forever
because
of her shameful sins. So like a rabbit in a snare, she gave up and
sacrificed herself
for the good of her family. It was easy. She'd been "his creature" before
and he
managed to convince her that Angel would never return. She even says as much
right before the murder. The thing that makes that scene with Angel so
powerful,
when he finally finds her living with Alec, is that you can feel the light
dawning for
her---The little rabbit finds that inner strength, knowing how terribly
wronged she
was, and for one brief instant, she's going to live for herself, Victorian
conventions
and her family be damned. So, she turns on her tormenter----and from the
"sharper
words" he utters at her despair, Hardy indicates that it would be difficult
to argue that
Alec's treating her well at this point beyond the financial trappings--and
sets herself
free.

Shannon

==========

From: Thudecki@cs.com
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:53:34 EDT
Subject: Re: Alec vs. Angel

I think that Tess finally went to live with Alec out of an instinct for
pure survival. Also, he had worn her down and she was very vulnerable. One has
to also remember that she was emotionally distraught and had gone through many
periods of surviving quite alone. She felt lonely and isolated. Time wore her
down. She wished finally to end that pain. Logically Tess did not do the
thing that would give her full happiness. If she had she would not have stabbed
Alec in the end. I thought that the fact that she went to live with Alec also
relieved her of the hope that she harbored of the return of Angel. In essence
in her mind, she was burning the torch she carried for Angel. This signified to
me her attempt to move on and have a life inspite of Angel's rejection. This
did not prove that she loved Alec at all. She was confused throughout the
book about quilt, love and her own sense of morality. She felt married to Alec
since he was the only one that she had known sexually. This was stated from time
to time. This was forced upon her. She confused intimacy with sexuality. Her
religious background hampered a more open view of marriage and she felt bound
to Alec morally. Having a child by him, also, sealed her connection, in Tess'
mind. As with Angel, and their family backgrounds both Tess and Angel were
hampered in some degree by their moral upbringing. I can understand this since I
have had the same feelings in my own past, but I was able to go beyond these
ridged beliefs. Therapy was unavailable (at the time of this book) for the
characters. They struggled to work out their problems on their own, not always
with success, as we well know.

Thanks for listening
to my thoughts.... Janine

==========

From: Meg Cronin <MgCronin@anselm.edu>
Subject: RE: Alec vs. Angel
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:13:24 -0400

On Alec and Angel:

The beauty of this discussion is that Hardy's work is complex enough
to merit all of these differing and nuanced views of the depiction of Alec
and Angel and their participation in Hardy's thematic exploration of
religious ideas, gender expectations, and class conflict. Might I just
throw in that Hardy further complicates the Alec/Angel-as-lover portrayal by
using language that, in places, suggests a demonic, devilish, or Satanic
seducer coloring into the characterization of Alec. Hardy does the same, of
course, in other novels (like Woodlanders). While it's obvious that Hardy
isn't presenting an Alec=Satan equation, this sort of layering and even
ironizing (when Alec is both religious in his behavior and talk but devilish
in the narrator's description of him) that makes the novel so thick and
rich.

I know I haven't really expressed an opinion here, just thrown more wood on.

Meg Cronin

==========

From: "ramzy raouf" <ramzy_raouf@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:06:32 +0000
Subject: Unidentified subject!

why did TH make angel clare loved by many women in " Tess Of the
d'urbervilles" ?

==========

From: Thudecki@cs.com
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:28:35 EDT
Subject: Re: Unidentified subject!
:

Reply-to: HARDY-L@csusm.edu
To: HARDY-L@csusm.edu

why did TH make angel clare loved by many women in " Tess Of the
d'urbervilles" ?

I think he did this to play up Angel's appeal to woman. He had a quiet,
layed-back sort of charm that many woman fall for, even before knowing the man
realistically. As for Alec he was a much more aggressive type personality, which
can act as a repelling force to some woman, depending upon their own
personalities.
Thanks
for listening,
Janine

==========

From: "harrybatt" <harrybatt@mn.rr.com>
Subject: Angel
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:47:38 -0500

<why did TH make angel clare loved by many women in " Tess Of the
d'urbervilles" ?> Angel was the son of churchfolk. He would have been a good catch. Security back in the early 19th Century was more important than love. Hardy's exception was Bathsheba who fell for the uniform and the guy who was full of glib charm; however, she already had the security. John Bridell, Minneapolis

==========