MovieChat Forums > Tess of the D'Urbervilles (2009) Discussion > Alec D'Urberville or Angel Clare?

Alec D'Urberville or Angel Clare?

posted 16 years ago by Queen_of_sheba
86 replies | jump to latest

When I read Tess of the D'Urbervilles, I always had a soft spot for Alec because I don't believe that he would be the way that he is, if his mother had been more loving towards him. After so long of neglect I think that most people would become arrogant and hurtful towards others because if nobody cares about you, why should you care about anybody... However after he rapes Tess, Alec does everything he can to make it up to her - even though I don’t think that you could ever truly make up for performing such an act - Alas he does try. I also think that Alec does really love Tess in his own (all granted twisted) way. Therefore I believe that Alec D'Urbervilles (other than of course Tess) is one of the most heartbreakingly tragic characters in the story.
And unlike Angel who left Tess at the first sign of trouble rather than facing it head on, Alec is there to pick up the broken pieces (which he smashed in the first place, so no, I haven't forgotten he's not a good guy!) and place them back together again. In my personal opinion I think that Alec was a much stronger character then Angel and is not oblivious to the fact that he did wrong, but he is searching for redemption from the one person that matters to him, Tess.

So she is violated by one man and forsaken by another, which one do you think is the more forgivable? Alec or Angel?

"Do you like strawberries Tess?"

[–] viennese_dream 15 years ago

Much of this discussion is based on whether Alec was a scoundrel because he raped Tess, or a love-sick fool because he seduced Tess. It seems to me that whether or not it is a rape is (almost) a moot point. A man who would put his sexual desires, based in love or lust, above the better interest of the woman is a scoundrel. Especially considering the consequences that society held for women, and only women, in this time period. Either way, it was not something that Tess had sought and therefore something Alec should be accountable for.

An argument against Alec actually being in love with Tess is that rather than help her family, with no strings attached, he coerces her into becoming his mistress. Alec is a selfish creature, only interested in possessing Tess, not loving her.

The only thing Angel has going for him is that Tess loves him. She never loved Alec, only Angel. Whether or not the reader wants her to love Alec over Angel is irrelevant. Angel betrays her as much, and probably on a deeper level, than Alec, but she wants Angel and does forgive him when he returns. She never forgives Alec, to the point of stabbing him to death.

I think Tess has made the choice.

"It's still an emotionally charged towel."

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Well-bloody-said, viennese dream!

There are - disturbingly - too many people out there looking at Alec and Angel as Mr Darcy figures; that isn't what Hardy had in mind at all.

[–] LittleSwallow 15 years ago

Thank you, Viennese Dream. You have brought to light in one post both points that I have been arguing since I read the book for the first time. A person who is in love would never goad or blackmail someone into submission. Tess even calls him on it. She tells him that if he wants to do good things for her family he should do it but not tell her about it. Alec was selfish through and through.

You argument about Angel is also one I hold. Angel might not deserve Tess's love, but she loves who she loves, and she wants him. Yeah, she might have lived if she loved Alec, but the point is she didn't, and shouldn't have been forced to spend the rest of her life with him.

Or...I just shoot you - "baby."
- Special Agent Dana Scully

[–] atomicseasoning 15 years ago

Yeah that's true. It is bizarre though that the man she loved was such a child at first that he abandoned her at the drop of a hat, while the man she didn't want became obsessed with her and his conquest to "do the right thing" in the eyes of society at least.

Still though, when Angel did come back I wish she would've been able to just leave with him and cast off Alec, without having to resort to murder. Tess could've left Alec for Angel without a backward glance because she wasn't legally married to Alec (but she was to Angel), and I'm sure Angel could've provided for Tess' family just as well as Alec did. (Actually didn't he end up doing that anyway when he married Tess' sister Liza Lou, after Tess's execution?)

It would've sounded ridiculous if Alec would've taken Tess to court after she left him, for "illegally breaking their contract for her to be his mistress." I could see how Tess might question Angel's loyalty especially after the stunt he pulled right after their wedding, but it would've given the story a cleaner end if she would've just left with him despite Alec's protests to the contrary.

CB in a decade http://www.hansmatheson.org/hansgallery/photohans7.jpg

[–] extranormalchaos 15 years ago

I have to read the book before I can make any further judgments, but if one were to just watch the BBC piece, they'd get the distinct impression that Alec never loved Tess. I believe lust would be the correct term in this situation or if that's the kind of thing you would call love then I pray for you and offer my sincerest wishes to you in life.

[–] taperjeangirl101 15 years ago

Angel for me is far more forgivable than Alec. Alec himself desribes himself as born evil and will die evil, Angel is no saint in that he abandoned her as you say at the frist sight of trouble but by the end for he completely redeems himself.

[–] small78 15 years ago

I don't think Angel betrays Tess at all. He leaves her to try get some perspective on the whole thing. He was in love with a woman he thought he knew, then finds out this thing that meant a lot more then than it does today.

He, in the book at least (I've not seen this adaptation) makes it clear that there is a good possibility that he will return once he's had time to reflect. He leaves her with enough money to carry her through the duration of his absence, but she is too proud to take advantage of it. That is what ultimately drives her to Alec. Angel DOES come back seemingly ready to forgive all and resume their marriage but it's too late.

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

I don't think Angel betrays Tess at all. He leaves her to try get some perspective on the whole thing. He was in love with a woman he thought he knew, then finds out this thing that meant a lot more then than it does today.

That is rubbish. He displays not only sheer arrogance and narrow mindedness in his treatment and betrayal of Tess, but callous hypocrisy, too. Hadn't he just confessed to having an affair with an older woman?

but she is too proud to take advantage of it.

Yes, perhaps that's a fault of sorts, but compared to the ills of the men in the story, I don't think you can blame her for it. After the crap she has to go through, I'm not going to begrudge her the dignity she so rightly deserves and holds unto till the end.

[–] small78 15 years ago

I wasn't saying that Angel is blameless. No one in this story is. I just think people are being too harsh on Angel all things considered. I mean for him to have said "oh that's ok, no worries" would have been pretty unrealistic. He left, mulled it over and realized that he had been an arse. He came back to ask her for her forgiveness. It seems like people are forgetting that. He is a 19th century man from a religious family. The fact that he does come to the conclusion that his reaction was hypocritical and he wants to be with Tess, regardless of how society would and does view her past, is a pretty big step.

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

He is a 19th century man from a religious family.

Yes, but he presents himself as one who preaches a much more liberal and broad minded outlook; he doesn't toe the family line of High Church values and dogma, his hypocrisy is far worse than his family's - they practise what they preach; he doesn't.

The fact that he does come to the conclusion that his reaction was hypocritical and he wants to be with Tess, regardless of how society would and does view her past, is a pretty big step.

Yes, but it is far too late! Tess pleads and begs for him to come back - he doesn't. It only takes severe illness and the wise words of a dying man for him to realise that he has indeed wronged Tess.

[–] small78 15 years ago

Yes he is a hypocrite. He eventually admits that and feels horrible about it.

Yes, but it is far too late! Tess pleads and begs for him to come back - he doesn't. It only takes severe illness and the wise words of a dying man for him to realise that he has indeed wronged Tess.

It's not his fault it's too late. Tess chose to basically sell herself to a man she knew to be pretty ... well, evil. And she didn't wait very long to give up on Angel and go to Alec. When Angel left he made it clear that there was a reasonable chance that he would return to be with her. In the book (which is what I'm basing my opinion on) she only sends one letter to him begging him to come back, and he returns soon after. I'm not blaming Tess for the whole thing. They both made mistakes. I'm just not sure why Angel gets all the blame.

I guess what I'm saying is it's really easy to place blame after the fact. Once you know how it all ends it's easy to say "if he or she would only have done this, there could have been a happy ending." We don't always know how our actions will effect people in the future. We make decisions in the moment and sometimes they end up having dire consequences. I think people would look upon Angel quite differently (or at least they would be able to forgive him) if Tess hadn't gone to Alec or if she didn't end up killing him (and being hanged.)If Angel had returned in time to save her and they lived happily ever after he'd be held as a hero for overcoming societies hypocrisies,prejudices and what-have-you. I guess they are all victims of piss-poor timing.

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

It is his fault! She explains in detail what has happended to her! After his confession, too! She is down in the gutter and he decides to further compound her misery by leaving her - oh, and he has plenty of time to reverse his decision: note his exchanges with Izzy and Mercy; but he still leaves!

She writes more than one letter! The last one is extremely passionate and damning and reveals her anger at his lack of communication.

Tess chose to basically sell herself to a man she knew to be pretty ... well, evil.

Oh, come on! She was being harassed to the ends of the earth, both by Alec and her Mum to accept! (para) 'He has made me his creature...'! It's extremely telling in her language post-acceptance what has happened!

Oh, she waited for Angel alright! She waited and waited, until her faith in her 'husband' was worn down to the ground by Alec and co.: 'He lied to me...he told me you wouldn't come back!' God knows the amount of times she stood up for her 'husband'!

[–] small78 15 years ago

Well Angel left her enough money to live off of so there was really no good reason for her to go to Alec.

Have you never been in a situation where someone tells you something or does something that disappoints/angers you, then after you've had time to really consider the matter you realize that either 1) it wasn't such a big deal after all or 2) you over reacted, or both?

Like I said, if the timing of EVERYONE's actions had been only slightly different people would have a very different opinion. I just don't like that Angel basically gets blamed for both his mistakes and faults as well as Tess's.

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Well Angel left her enough money to live off of so there was really no good reason for her to go to Alec.

Are you reading my posts or not? She doesn't just walk into Alec's arms, you know! That is a highly incorrect reading of the source material.

And regarding Angel's faux philanthropy: that's simply not good enough; it's rubbing salt into a wound. You leave her disgraced and offer her a few quid and ask her to go begging to your parents in case you need any more? Pathetic. Why not be there for her instead?

Have you never been in a situation where someone tells you something or does something that disappoints/angers you, then after you've had time to really consider the matter you realize that either 1) it wasn't such a big deal after all or 2) you over reacted, or both?

What Angel did was more than a mistake; it was a gross overreaction - he had ample time to reflect on what he did; he even manages to sneak in the odd thought here and there that Tess might be in the right, but he still leaves her. To top off just how wrong he is in this, you must also take into account that he has done what Tess has done too - but apparently it isn't the same! For a person who likes to think that he is different; that he is a modern man -- IT.IS.UNFORGIVABLE.

Like I said, if the timing of EVERYONE's actions had been only slightly different people would have a very different opinion. I just don't like that Angel basically gets blamed for both his mistakes and faults as well as Tess's.

Well, Angel is to blame - there is no two ways about it. The man is a hypocrite, he is a liar, he is two-faced -- he is a fraud! Read his words just before and after Tess's confession: it makes your blood boil. He left her; do you know what kind of stain that leaves on a woman? The amount of flak and back-biting she had to deal with because of his actions is hard to bear as a reader, so just imagine someone actually going through that in reality; He admits it towards the end - but then it is 'too late'. No amount of money he leaves her isn't going to make what he did alright. What a *beep* cheek! You leave her to rot and you think throwing money at her is going to help? No-bloody-thanks! Throw his *beep* charity back in his face: why not be there for her; why not help her overcome her past grief instead of creating new pain.

I'm sorry but shrugging your shoulders and thinking that 'oh well, he made a mistake - that's alright' -- is pathetic and misses the point; she truly loved him, and that is why his betrayal hurts and stings her the most.

[–] small78 15 years ago

I am wondering if YOU are reading MY entire posts. And I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from. We're just discussing our differing opinions on a work of fiction.

My point with the money is that it IS good enough for the short term, and Angel made it clear he'd most likely come back. How could he have guessed that she would do the things she did given that NONE of it was necessary?

Well, Angel is to blame - there is no two ways about it. The man is a hypocrite, he is a liar, he is two-faced -- he is a fraud

The characters in this story are not black and white.
You paint Tess as nothing but an unwilling victim and I simply don't see it that way.

What bothers me the most about your analysis is that you, and other Angel detractors, judge him by 21st century standards and Tess by 19th century standards. It hardly seems fair.

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

I am wondering if YOU are reading MY entire posts.

Oh, I'm reading your posts alright - I'm picking off every sentence; but your incessant need to bring up Angels' charity money and reading of Tess' supposed running off to Alec leaves me to doubt whether you're reading mine. If anything, this kind of disingenuous argument is enough to make one hostile.

My point with the money is that it IS good enough for the short term, and Angel made it clear he'd most likely come back.

Not Good enough; that short term can and does destroy a woman. What assurances does he give her? Tell me. And where is he, by the way, during this short term, eh? Where are those assurances of his?

How could he have guessed

Again: that isn't good enough - it's a weak defence: how could he have known, indeed! The man doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a fraud. Who's going to believe a word he says? He doubts himself, you think we're to think that his words are sincere? No they are hypocritical and purposefully bitter - he cuts her to the deep after her confession and twists the knife for good measure.

The characters in this story are not black and white.
You paint Tess as nothing but an unwilling victim and I simply don't see it that way.

Oh, I'm not painting the characters as black and white, they're anything but; yet no one can doubt at Angel's culpability in Tess' downfall; he, along with Alec, grind her to the ground. The blame is clear to see - it is created by society and narrow-minded Victorian parochial values. I've already described Angel's supposedly liberal mindset and willingness to differ from the flock - hardly black and white - yet he still lets Tess down. The blame is clear to see.

Aside from Tess' pride, which I've already stated can be read as a 'fault of sorts' - what does she do that makes her a willing victim? Does she ask to be raped at the age of sixteen? Does she ask to be pimped out by her family? Does she ask for men to prey on her looks (a thing that Angel and Alec remark upon constantly) -- 'All is vanity...'? Does she ask to be harassed and stalked to the point of exhaustion? Does she ask to be blackmailed? What?

What bothers me the most about your analysis is that you, and other Angel detractors, judge him by 21st century standards and Tess by 19th century standards. It hardly seems fair.

No - you judge him by 21st Century standards. I judge him by his own. What he preaches, he doesn't act upon. I judge him by the standards by which he boasts to live upon: it's in the book. That is enough.

Hardy didn't create Angel to be a Mr Darcy or a Mr Rochester - he isn't supposed to make your hearts flutter at the end and make you swoon and think 'oh, he's back!'. That to me seems like a 21st Century bleeding-heart attitude.

And I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from. We're just discussing our differing opinions on a work of fiction.

You can choose to believe the following or not: I am not angry with you; I get passionate about Tess; I have to defend her; no one was there for her in the book, so it's up to the reader to be her support. I use every word, line, sentence, paragraph and page in the book to back up my words of support. I do not judge anyone by our modern standards. If you doubt this ask me to use direct quotes from the book (I've already used a few para's).

Regarding the censored words: they were used rhetorically, and were to be seen as directed towards Angel's actions, not to yourself.

[–] small78 15 years ago

Oh, I'm reading your posts alright - I'm picking off every sentence; but your incessant need to bring up Angels' charity money and reading of Tess' supposed running off to Alec leaves me to doubt whether you're reading mine. If anything, this kind of disingenuous argument is enough to make one hostile.

I keep bringing it up because you seem to be of the belief that she had no other choice but to cave in to Alec. Her decision to return to him really bothered me when I read the book and still does because it wasn't a measure of last resort. (because of Angel's money) I just didn't get it at all. I understand that he was harassing her but verbal molestation is not a good enough reason to go back to a man that raped you. If Angel had left her with nothing, and she needed to sort of sacrifice herself for her and her family's future then I could forgive that decision. Or if she had accepted what you call his charity for some time, then came to the conclusion that this was no way to live, then I would have been able to accept her choice. I'm not saying Angel's "charity" washes away his actions. I am saying that it eliminates Tess' NEED to go back to Alec.

No - you judge him by 21st Century standards. I judge him by his own. What he preaches, he doesn't act upon. I judge him by the standards by which he boasts to live upon

I absolutely do not. If I were judging him by today's standards, then yeah, he's a major prick. And I do think that your argument against his actions compared to what he preaches is valid. I just don't think it's fair to heap all the blame on Angel. He felt deceived. He married someone thinking she was one thing and find out she is another. I'm not saying that he is right to feel that way, especially in light of his own indiscretions, but he had an ideal in his head and it was destroyed. I can't blame the guy for needing to wrap his head around that.

Not Good enough; that short term can and does destroy a woman. What assurances does he give her? Tell me. And where is he, by the way, during this short term, eh? Where are those assurances of his?

You're right she had no assurances. But as long as there was the slightest possibility that Angel would return she should not have got back to Alec.

Hardy didn't create Angel to be a Mr Darcy or a Mr Rochester - he isn't supposed to make your hearts flutter at the end and make you swoon and think 'oh, he's back!'. That to me seems like a 21st Century bleeding-heart attitude.

First, Darcy and Rochester were written in the 19th century, so it's not a "21th Century bleeding-heart attitude." Second, I never said he made my heart flutter or that I celebrated his return. I see him for the flawed man that he is. He makes some stupid decisions. So does Tess. Those decisions PUT TOGETHER cause Tess' downfall.

I repeat: I don't think Angel is blameless, it just bothers me when people are so quick to hold him solely accountable for the what happens in the end.

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

I keep bringing it up because you seem to be of the belief that she had no other choice but to cave in to Alec. Her decision to return to him really bothered me when I read the book and still does because it wasn't a measure of last resort. (because of Angel's money)

It's not as simple as that! For her, due to a string of events, it was a last resort! Tess and her family are completely destitute! That is a last resort and Alec uses it to his advantage.

How long do you think Angel's money would last? Do you honestly think Angel's parents would take her entire family in? Remember she made her way to his parents' and overheard words from his brother and Mercy that were not altogether very kind; they refer to her discarded boots as someone who'd left them behind to 'excite our sympathies'. Tess is mortified anyone can think anything of the sort; the Tess that we know upto this point is scarred.

I just didn't get it at all. I understand that he was harassing her but verbal molestation is not a good enough reason to go back to a man that raped you. If Angel had left her with nothing, and she needed to sort of sacrifice herself for her and her family's future then I could forgive that decision. Or if she had accepted what you call his charity for some time, then came to the conclusion that this was no way to live, then I would have been able to accept her choice. I'm not saying Angel's "charity" washes away his actions. I am saying that it eliminates Tess' NEED to go back to Alec.

It doesn't eliminate her need - instead it'd create more. Angel doesn't come back (he is away for a long time) - no matter how much Tess pleads with him in her letters (unfortunately she isn't to know the situation in Brazil); Tess doesn't want to be a burden and after the unlucky visit explained above, that is a route that cannot be taken again.

Oh, and it wasn't just verbal molestation by Alec, and I'm not talking about the rape either. Keep this in mind. there are several instances where he manhandles her.

And I do think that your argument against his actions compared to what he preaches is valid. I just don't think it's fair to heap all the blame on Angel. He felt deceived. He married someone thinking she was one thing and find out she is another. I'm not saying that he is right to feel that way, especially in light of his own indiscretions, but he had an ideal in his head and it was destroyed. I can't blame the guy for needing to wrap his head around that.

I think I understand your intentions better now; your original 'I don't think Angel betrays Tess at all. He leaves her to try get some perspective on the whole thing.' made me double-take and wonder if anyone can actually believe this rubbish.http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1186342/board/thread/118060750?d=132103568&; amp;p=1#132103568

But I see you do indeed think he is to blame, but not all. While I still disagree, at least you acknowledge his culpability and cowardice.

He felt deceived. He married someone thinking she was one thing and find out she is another.

So? She was deceived too, wasn't she? She is still the same person that she was pre-marriage! In Hardy's own words, she 'was essentially pure, purer than many a so-called unsullied virgin'.

If we're to go by your logic, she married someone thinking he was a liberal, broad-minded, modern man who understood the ways of nature and women and who shared her feelings of empathy.

There were so many instances where she tried to tell Angel of her past, but he, in his over-exuberance, childishly brushes her worries away as though they were mere frivolous girlish worries - fate doesn't lend her a hand either: remember the letter.

But as long as there was the slightest possibility that Angel would return she should not have got back to Alec.

How long do you propose she waits? Remember that her family are homeless. Where is Angel? A fool can see her dilemma: even Alec understands that her husband has let her down badly.

First, Darcy and Rochester were written in the 19th century, so it's not a "21th Century bleeding-heart attitude.

You've missed my point: the 21st Century bleeding-heart attitude I was speaking of referred to those leading men in modern adaptations and society's tendency to side with the person in the wrong and making the victim feel like a criminal. Anyway, I'm glad to read that you do agree that I'm not judging Angel by our modern standards but by his very own.

I see him for the flawed man that he is. He makes some stupid decisions. So does Tess. Those decisions PUT TOGETHER cause Tess' downfall.

You're right he is flawed. Highly flawed. His mistakes are extremely severe and they badly affect a fellow human being to the utmost. Tess's pride isn't enough to cause her downfall, Alec and Angel do plenty to finish her off. They are the ones who cause her downfall. They are to blame.

it just bothers me when people are so quick to hold him solely accountable for the what happens in the end.

He is not soley to be held accountable for Tess' downfall: Alec is his partner in crime; but you seem to shrug of his actuions as mere youthful folly, it's almost as bad as the pro-Alec posters defending their poster boy.

[–] small78 15 years ago

If we're to go by your logic, she married someone thinking he was a liberal, broad-minded, modern man who understood the ways of nature and women and who shared her feelings of empathy.

There's nothing wrong with my logic. The above quote is true. They were both mistaken in some ways and deceived in others. It's not an uncommon thing between two people. Neither of them had malicious intentions.

Alec and Angel do plenty to finish her off. They are the ones who cause her downfall. They are to blame.....He is not soley to be held accountable for Tess' downfall: Alec is his partner in crime; but you seem to shrug of his actuions as mere youthful folly, it's almost as bad as the pro-Alec posters defending their poster boy.

I have shrugged nothing off. I have admitted I think Angel made mistakes and is not an infallible character. I just don't like the way you have made Tess into some sort of perfect creature who was wronged by the world and had no other choices in life than the ones she made. Yes, she is a victim in more ways than one, but I personally had a really hard time understanding some of her choices, especially the one that puts the final nail in her coffin. Too many posters have decided that this is a clear cut case of pure good and pure evil. I disagree with that. That line of thinking has led them, and you, to hate Angel. It would a perfect man (or perhaps Mr Darcy) that would immediately put Tess' out of his mind. I understand that people make bad judgment calls sometimes. We all do it. I think the fact that Angel realizes that he has in fact been a massive prick and come back to ask her for her forgiveness says something about his character.

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

There's nothing wrong with my logic. The above quote is true. They were both mistaken in some ways and deceived in others. It's not an uncommon thing between two people. Neither of them had malicious intentions.

Yes, I'm not doubting this, but only one carried out an unforgivable act of betrayal and it's clear to see how blame is attached. She doesn't deceive him, though - to do so denotes keeping back something for your own advantage; if you're aware of Tess' thought prior and after marriage, she sees no advantage with her albatross; he, though keeps it back, in fact doesn't even hint at it at all, and takes it for granted that she'd forget it because he's who he is.

I just don't like the way you have made Tess into some sort of perfect creature who was wronged by the world and had no other choices in life than the ones she made.

She is perfect in comparison to the characters inhabiting the novel; she displays courage, sincerity, kindness and trust; even when it doesn't suit her own needs, she thinks of others and is rarely willing to apportion blame to anyone else - Hardy created her as a symbol: of nature and of Wessex; I don't think I'm stretching to claim that she is pure when compared to the ills of the book; why doubt what I say when I've quoted Hardy's own words to back it up? What don't you like about this?

Too many posters have decided that this is a clear cut case of pure good and pure evil. I disagree with that.

Pure good and pure evil? Who's pure evil? Who's pure good? I think you've misunderstood the word 'pure' - it refers to what Angel deems as a clean and moral woman and how Hardy describes his eponymous heroine.

That line of thinking has led them, and you, to hate Angel.

That line of thinking? What nonsense! I've put together a good case for his betrayal, there is no deception on my part to create an evil bad persona; Angel's own words are damning enough to strike him down; I have very good reasons to dislike Angel and Alec: I've put them forward on this board and this thread.

I think the fact that Angel realizes that he has in fact been a massive prick and come back to ask her for her forgiveness says something about his character.

Yes, it says that he is weak, wet, spineless and a mummy's boy. After his personal failure in Brazil, he comes back - when everything is left for dead in Brazil, he comes back. Where was he when Tess needed him most?

You yourself admit he's a 'prick' - that sort of language denotes that his actions were of the utmost severity and cannot just be shrugged off (which you are doing, despite the language) yet you still continue to use the line of 'we all make mistakes'.

I understand that people make bad judgment calls sometimes.

I think you're taking me round in circles, I'm not sure if it's intentional on your part or not; he has had time to think over his actions post confession - but he still deserts her. Think about it.

[–] small78 15 years ago

Obviously we have to agree to disagree.
You see these characters, and the world, one way, I see them another.

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Obviously we have to agree to disagree.

I disagree!

Joking!

Well, at least you think that Angel is to blame partly, that's something I suppose!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Chunli_injections 15 years ago

Angel. I prefer someone who isn't a rapist.

[–] LadyVirgoxoxo 14 years ago

Alec <333

DX,John Morrison,CM Punk,Dolph Ziggler,Edge,Kane,R-Truth

[–] emily-dixon-598-857827 14 years ago

Alec D'Urberville: Putting the "sensual" back in "nonconsensual"

[–] blondeprincess 14 years ago

I am watching this movie again hehe.. I love it.

You make some very interesting points. I dont think either of them are really easily forgivable.

Angel just maybe - because he was very worried about what his critical family would think. But I felt it was heart wrenching when he left her.

I preferred Alec - I found his character to be strong and determinded - unlike Angel - I prefer this type of person - so maybe my own personal feelings are mixed in there.

Also interesting is that Tess, Sorrow and Alec died - so this twisted family unit that would never be all died tragically and sad.

All in all it is still a very great read and watch.

----------------------------------------------------
Dogs have Owners - Cats have Staff

--- Mmmmmm.... Mr. Darcy! P&P !!!

A kiss of the most deadly kind- big expressive deeply wounding lips.

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

I hear what you are saying and I have yet to read the book so I can't make a judgement on Alec however I was told that in the book he did do the whole religion thing but that was just a front. He did admit that he gave it up because it 'Just wasn't for him', he may say to love Tess but not enough to let her go. I believe in what Demi Moore said from Indecent Proposal 'If you love something, you let it go. If it comes back to you then it is yours to keep forever' now Tess didn't return to Alec, she did it only because he bargained with her mother like a deal. Angel returned to her remorsful and all so he was her's to keep.

Hey look at Jane Eyre, she left Edward when she learned the truth of his mad wife but returned to him in the end. Whatever leaves, if it returns then it is there to stay forever, that is my philosophy.

[–] Heybartender 14 years ago

Since the novel is primarily about intention (as Tess is a “pure” woman because she has always had good intentions), I think it’s necessary to consider everybody else’s intentions, as well. Alec is definitely guilty of the crime of acting upon his feelings. He is “bad” by the standards of the day—he manages to offend quite a few Victorian sensibilities—but I do not believe he is malicious by nature or means to cause harm. After the incident, when she is fleeing Trantridge, he catches her up and says:

“I suppose I am a bad fellow—a damn bad fellow. I was born bad, and I have lived bad, and I shall die bad in all probability. But, upon my lost soul, I won't be bad towards you again, Tess.”

I can’t help believing that, even under the circumstances, in a twisted way, Alec’s heart is in the right place. He is generous with his money and his affection and doesn’t care who sees. He clearly wants Tess, no matter her simple background. Angel, on the other hand, plans to keep her from his parents until he’s able to modify her manners a bit. He justifies his desire for her by saying that he’ll need a wife who knows about farming. He loves the idea of her purity—he doesn’t really want to know her. He leaves her alone, even with the knowledge that it’ll destroy her.

But Alec never stops wanting her. Bad or not, the man is stricken with a love he cannot control. Despite being spurned, he shows up again and again, making a fool of himself every time. He even tries to “do the right thing” (as dictated by Victorian morality) by marrying her. Even after she says no, he wants to do anything he can to take care of her. He doesn’t just want a wife—he wants safety for Tess. In the end, he succumbs to his earthly desire for her and sacrifices his “saved” soul by giving up his religious beliefs. (Although the preacher thing probably wouldn’t have worked anyway. He was basically spouting what Angel’s father told him to think because he went looking for comfort after the death of his mother and needed rescuing. I don’t really see fit to condemn him for "belief" born of grief.)

In my opinion, what Angel did caused far more emotional damage. If actions speak louder than words, then Alec’s acceptance of Tess in all her dairymaid-simpleness, his attention, and his perseverance tell of the better intentions. Angels just takes himself out of the picture.