Criticism on Hardy's Tess of The D'Urbervilles

The review that stuck out to me most was Raymond Williams "Love and Work." He talks mostly about how Hardy writes about where he comes from and who he is. However, in doing this he is neither one thing nor another. "He is neither owner nor tenant, dealer nor labourer, but an observer and chronicler, often again with uncertainty about his actual relation" (464). Even more interesting Williams suggests that Hardy "was not writing for them but about them" (464). Williams implies that Hardy was more about the abstract.

This review really stuck to me because it doesn't really praise Hardy completely nor put him down like most critics do. Instead it analysis where Hardy is coming from. I think by knowing more about his character we can understand Tess and the novel more. By  Hardy not being one specific thing but rather being an observer I think that the missing pieces in the novel make more sense. In other words, he was "uncertain about his actual relation" and I think we too see this in Tess. Therefore, I think this is why we don't get an explanation of why Tess runs back to Alec, kills Alec, etc. He leaves it up for the reader to decide because he doesn't know the relationships and he wasn't "writing for them but about them." It is interesting to think that maybe Hardy didn't put these big moments in his novel because he doesn't know the answer to why or how they played out the way they did.

Contemporary Reviews of Tess

The Illustrated London News applauds Thomas Hardy for what they call "the finest work which he has yet produced" (382). The review suggests that Tess of the D'Urbervilles is one of Hardy's best works because he challenges the conventional reader. Not only does it challenge the conventional ready but the novel shows women in such a way that does not put blame on their misfortunes but on nature. Whereas, The Saturday Review has a completely different opinion on Tess of the D'Urbervilles "Mr. Hardy, it must be conceded, tells an unpleasant story in a very unpleasant way" (384). The Saturday Review implies that the novel is unpleasant because of the main character in it Tess. They are not pleased with how Tess went back to Alec after loathing for the whole novel.

I never understood nor can I now understand why Tess is so disliked. I understand that she ran back to Alec after loathing him for much of the novel, but what woman hasn't ran back to a guy that did her wrong? Especially if the guy is begging day in and day out and if their true love left them. Alec was in my eyes a rebound boy, and Tess realized this when she ran back to her love the minute he returned. While, yes she killed Alec; and that is beyond crazy, she snapped after a long life  misfortunes. This is why I have to agree with The Illustrated London News, Hardy wrote a novel that went against the normal novel of the time. Every reader wanted a happy ending, however, Hardy was smart enough to see that life in general is not filled with happy endings. Therefore, I think his novel is more of a truthful novel. Crappy things happen in life, but sometimes we can't control what happens, much like Tess couldn't with certain events.

Joseph Jacobs, 10/21 Blog.

Joseph Jacobs talks about how Eliot's novel is more of an interest in morality rather then a psychological one. "Luckily for George Eliot her interests were ethical rather than psychological, and if she ever does violence to art, it is in the interest of morality rather than of science (581). Jacobs suggests that Eliot's work is "a criticism of life" (581). He implies that Eliot attempts to affect the reader in many different areas. Areas such as human affairs, the solidarity of society, and the constitution of society as incarnate history.

I agree with Jacobs in the idea that Eliot's interests were more ethical. I think it would be silly to think that she was not attempting to touch her readers in any kind of aspect. She put her whole heart into her work and looked to reform the time in which she wrote the novel. It is in the way that she writes herself in her characters that allows us to really feel connected even as modern readers. We may not understand the characters style of living, but I think we do feel a connection in the sense that we feel some empathy for them at times or even a hatred at others. With all this in mind, I wonder how the novel would have been taken if it was not written from such an ethical point of view. If Eliot had written it as more of a psychological novel how would this change the story? How would it change how we feel about the novel and see it?

Religion in Middlemarch

Matthew Rich goes into detail in his essay "Not a Church, but an Individual Who Is His or Her Own Church": Religion In George Eliot's Middlemarch about how we see religion in the novel. Rich suggests that Eliot isn't showing religion through organized causes such as church, but rather through individuals themselves. In other words, Rich shows how the individual characters do Gods work or practice their religion through their own work. Rich implies that characters such as Dorothea Brook looks at religion as a "re-connection with other human beings, in the form of an ardent desire to do something for her fellow creatures to mitigate their suffering"  (650). Or Caleb Garth who "re-connects with the land; his is a religion in which hard work and sweat take the place of form and ceremony, and the highest good is not salvation, but the satisfaction that comes with a job well-done and done well for others" (650). In the rest of Rich's review he brings up other characters and how they practice religion.

Matthew Rich brings up the word "re-connect" often in his review. He associates the word with the character he is mentioning in the sense that the character has again found their calling. In other words, Dorothea re-connects with human beings to look to soften their suffering. Caleb re-connects with his land and Harriet Bulstrode re-connects with her husband in his time of loneliness. It seems that Rich is suggesting that all these characters have once connected with their specific items. However, at the moment they re-connect they are doing it in a more religious way. A way that allows them to practice what they see as Gods work. These characters seemed to have an epiphany. I wondered if Eliot showed herself a little bit in these characters. Rich points out how "Middlemarch is a novel of reform. And Religious reform is as important a theme for George Eliot" (650). These characters are playing into Eliot's bigger themes of political and social reform by looking to help people who need it. Just as Eliot was trying to do with her novel. She was trying to show that things need to change. I think that through these characters re-connection with their work Eliot is showing a piece of herself. The part of her that is trying to make a difference in a world that was filled with harsh realities.

Side note: I just realized that I did this blog on the recent criticism, so my next one will be on the contemporary criticism. Sorry! I am just going to switch them around.

 Rich, Matthew. "Not a Church, but an Individual Who Is His or Her Own Chirch: Religion in
     George Eliot's Middlemarch." Middlemarch. By George Eliot and Bert G. Hornback. 2nd ed. New
     York: W.W. Norton, 2000. 649-56. Print.

George Eliot's Decision to Split up Middlemarch

The letters between George Eliot and John Blackwood interested me a ton. They talk a lot about the skeleton of the novel. In other words, they talk about the decision to separate the novel into different books. John Blackwood mentions how he forgot Mr. Brooke while reading the "second volume" but states how as soon as he came back into the picture he instantly knew his voice. George Eliot also talks about how enthused everyone was and all the positive feedback she got. At one point she mentions getting a bouquet of flowers with a sweet letter. I feel as though there is a lot that can be said about the novel from these letters.

These letters made me really reflect on the outline of George Eliot's novel. Instead of one very flowing novel we get it broken up into different parts really focusing on different characters. I keep thinking about how this affects the view of the novel or the understanding of it. Personally I think it is better that the novel is in different sections. It helps Eliot pinpoint important social standards of the time that she seemed to want to focus on. If the novel was not broken into different sections then I most definitely would be completely lost with all the characters. While the characters can still be confusing at times, I truly believe that the different sections help my understanding more. In class today my classmate and I were just talking about how all the different characters can start to blur together. However, when we hear Mr. Brooke we instantly get happy because he is a character we recognize and are familiar with. John Blackwood felt the same way, "I had quite forgotten Mr. Brooke, but I knew his voice the moment he came into the room at the meeting for the election of Chaplain" (533). In other words, it seems that Mr. Brooke is a character that is universally understood and recognizable. Is this because he is introduced very early into the novel? How would this novel change if it wasn't split up into sections? Would Eliot's point get across and receive the positive feedback that she got is she decided to do it differently?

John or Mary Barton, That is the Question.

Rosemarie Bodenheimer sets up her critique by first suggesting that Mary Barton "has been assumed that the [...] novel is the portrait of John Barton, and that the story of Mary relies directly on romantic patterns and is designed to entertain the reading public" (511). In other words, Bodenheimer is implying that Mary Barton is more so about John Barton over his daughter. While I see where she gets this idea, I would have to disagree with her. The novel seems to be more about the Barton family, and how their lives are played out once the mother dies, and factories drastically change. Mary’s life is shaped based upon what happens within her family and how they are affected by the industrial revolution. I do see how Mary is shaped largely by her father, for example she does not go work in a factory because of her father’s influences. Mary’s romantic life is influenced by her father as well. After her mother’s death and the factory changes their lives start to drastically change. The family becomes poorer and find themselves struggling more. It is after these events that we see Mary flirting with the Carson boy. While she does not really love him she wants to get out of the situation that her family has found themselves in. The novel as a whole would not work without the family influencing one another. Therefore, I think it is not realistic to suggest that the novel is about one character or the other.