The episode guide for it says that in episode 2 that tess returns home shamed at having been seduced by Alec and that she's ashamed to tell Angel about her past discresion or something like that...anyway it makes it sound like she was well up for it and was basically a bit of a tramp. That can't be right?
DANCING AT DISCOS, EATING CHEESE ON TOAST, YEAH YOU MAKE ME HAPPY, MAKE ME VERY MERRY HAPPY
erm no I think that in the story obv raped wasnt a term known and so it is seen more as an indescretion and also in ep. 3 when she tells angel about it she says that she felt obliged to him as he had taken care of her family..... so yeah.
I think the dramatisation made a faux-pas in the handling of the scene in episode 1, with the screaming.
The sense of obligation makes sense, also the deeply instinctive natures of the characters themselves. They're young, alone, in the dark of the sacred wood “wherein Druidical mistletoe was still found on aged oaks” and where "Above them rose the primæval yews and oaks of The Chase, in which were poised gentle roosting birds in their last nap; and about them stole the hopping rabbits and hares". (I think Tess is one of the most profoundly Pagan novels in English literature.)
In Ep 1, they had screams on the soundtrack, but I thought this was a bad decision in the dramatisation. The book is more nuanced, and I think the answer is "no". She is “temporarily blinded by his ardent manners” and “stirred to confused surrender awhile”. Later, she responds to her friends’ inquiries “with a manner of superiority, as if recognizing that her experiences in the field of courtship had, indeed, been slightly enviable” - which would be perverse, had she been raped, as would be the narrator's comment, "But for the world’s opinion those experiences would have been simply a liberal education”. Hardy was forced to fudge matters because of the moral climate in which he worked (and which eventually put him off writing fiction after Jude the Obscure).
See John Sutherland's essay "Is Alec a rapist?" in Is Heathcliff a Murderer?.
yes he did. You can read more in the thread entitled 'Alec or Angel' and 'The Independent review gets it right'.
[deleted]
In this version it was clearly rape, but in the novel and the previous TV version it wasn't necessarily rape, therefore there is a bit of confusion regarding her subsequent behaviour that seems counter to the results of a criminal act.
I think it is more the fault of the writer of this version rather than any sort of deep questioning of the status of rape during Victorian times.
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!
As a guy, I make it my business never to argue with the opposite sex over the nature of rape.
But let's see. In the book, he stalks her, drugs her, carts her off to where she has no hope of flight or rescue and then has sex with her without consent.
What do we call that?
But let's see. In the book, he stalks her, drugs her, carts her off to where she has no hope of flight or rescue and then has sex with her without consent.
Yes I have simplified it. No, it is not over-simplified.
Hardy does draw a veil of mist over the actual event but those are actual events in the timeline. You can hypothesise about whether or not Tess yielded because Hardy's prose cuts away from the act, but you cannot identify anything which would count as actual consent.
But in this programme she is raped, there is no question of her 'yielding'. Her actions after the act are consistant with this fact.
So in answer to the OP, in this programme she was raped.
Hardy wrote the scene purposely vague and the actions that occur after the act are also disputable.
There wouldn't be so much argument about it by fans of the book otherwise.
So, what you have is an opinion which differs from others.
I am not arguing any particular point myself but I do question why you feel the need to go on about the book when it is the adaptation we are referring to?
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!
I don't see how having an affair with someone for at least a month when she was free to leave at any time are consistant with the fact of being raped?
shareShe was under his roof and as far as she was concerned, what Alec did made him her husband. Her only possible husband. Rather than abandon all hope she allowed herself to be persuaded to see if life with him was possible. And who wouldn't under the circumstances and given the alternative? That's her weakness, not consenting to sex on the coach ride.
shareI don't see how having an affair with someone for at least a month when she was free to leave at any time are consistant with the fact of being raped?Oh, she was free was she? Can you give us an example of this freedom? share
Why wasn't she free? She was only an employee. She could try for work elsewhere. The family aren't destitute AT THIS STAGE. And there are plenty of people willing to take her place at the farm - why are Car Darch etc so jealous of being replaced by Tess if Alec is the monster you say he is? And when she does decide to go she manages it with no trouble, she just ups and leaves.
shareThose are all important and interesting questions. They have important and interesting answers, some of which have been suggested and anticipated in other threads. In relation to Alec's guilt at The Chase they are, however, simply the wrong questions.
Why, when she was being attacked by a large group was she "stepping out of the frying pan into the fire"? Why did her predecessor at Trantridge also leave suddenly? Why was she drugged without her knowledge in the serialised version? How is she 'pure' if she gives in to seduction? How can Angel, whose narrow mind has heard the whole story, describe her as 'spotless' if she wasn't coerced? Why did they know at Marlott of a rape at The Chase a year earlier?
The family's only work-horse has just died! Can you not imagine what that means for a family dependant on something like this? Tess's father's heart problems skipped you by, eh? Perhaps those 'several' times that you skimmed over the book you didn't notice this?
She was only an employee. She could try for work elsewhere.Haven't you forgotten the claiming Kin part? About why she was sent there in the first place? How Tess has only got a job there due to Alec forging his Mum's signature? And what's with this 'she was only an employee' crap? What, she doesn't have a right to feel? Because she is poor and obscure that she has no heart? She has just as much heart as you or anyone in the novel! (Thanks C. Bronte!)
The fact that the familys horse has died just means that John Durbeyfield has to travel and work by foot. They do have an income still - albeit a reduced one. They have not been thrown out of thier house, sent to the workhouse, or starving in the streets. In short they are not destitute. Later in the novel, when when the familys fortunes have declined sharply, then Tess has no real choice in the decision she makes, but thats not true at this stage. Tess has a massively exagerated sense of guilt at the horses death, which her parents exaggerated in order to get her to claim kin.
By she was only an employee, I mean that Tess is not Alecs wife, so he has no legal right to force her to stay, she is not kept locked up, so can just walk out whenever she chooses. I wasn't casting any aspersions on her right to feelings.
I'm assuming Car Darch is an ex mistress of Alecs, who is jealous at being cast asaide for Tess, rather than being relived at escaping Alecs attentions if he is a serial rapist.
But I'm sure you will tell me if I'm wrong...
Did I say they are destitute? No. Are they worse off now that Prince has gone? Yes. Do you know how many children they have? Why ignore Tess's father's health problems? It's not a rosy situation by all means.
You don't seem to find a connection with various events in the book, do you? You mention:
Tess has a massively exagerated sense of guilt at the horses death, which her parents exaggerated in order to get her to claim kin.yet you say:
she is not kept locked up, so can just walk out whenever she chooses.She is burdened with emotional blackmail on her family's side and its economical counterpart by Alec; mix these with her 'exaggerated sense of guilt' and you may yet see the dilemma. And yet she was free, wasn't she? And what about later on? Does Alec respect this 'freedom'?
I'm assuming Car Darch is an ex mistress of Alecs, who is jealous at being cast asaide for Tess, rather than being relived at escaping Alecs attentions if he is a serial rapist.Yes, you carry on assuming there, unicorn: is that how you approach reading? share
She is burdened with emotional blackmail on her family's side and its economical counterpart by Alec; mix these with her 'exaggerated sense of guilt' and you may yet see the dilemma. And yet she was free, wasn't she? And what about later on? Does Alec respect this 'freedom'?
Yes, but these are all things that are internal to Tess or circumstantial - guilt, emotional blackmail, straightened circumstances - which may certainly have influenced her decision to stay, but it was exactly that - a decision. Unlike later when the family really are destitute, with no money, no home, no breadwinner.
And she proves she is free to leave - by leaving!!
Yes, you carry on assuming there, unicorn: is that how you approach reading?
Actually no, but when I venture to express an opinion here, I seem to be abused for it so I'm trying not to antagonise people by remaining reticent.
which may certainly have influenced her decision to stay, but it was exactly that - a decision. Unlike later when the family really are destitute, with no money, no home, no breadwinner.This is not really true. The significance of the horse is that it separates them from unskilled agricultural labour, allowing Durbeyfield to make a profit, buying and selling. Since he had no other skills, after the loss of the horse, he would have been forced onto the bottom rung of the ladder, unable to make enough money to keep him in drink, let alone provide for his family and there would have been no question of them keeping the house. Although the value of the horse may have been only £20-£50, it was the difference between what little security they had and complete ruin. There was very little difference to the Durbeyfields in simple economic terms, between losing te horse and losing its master. Both meant a catastrophic reduction in income, loss of the house and the children leaving school and going out to work.
And she proves she is free to leave - by leaving!!That is far too simplistic, unicorn. Read between the lines, read why she lingers on and why she eventually decides to leave.
I'm assuming Car Darch is an ex mistress of Alecs, who is jealous at being cast asaide for Tess
Indeed: as is her sister Nance.
And it's very hard to imagine his relationships with either of those two being exploitative or non-consensual. Car especially is described as a big, tough girl: she'd probably flatten a man who tried anything on with her that she didn't want.
And when she does decide to go she manages it with no trouble, she just ups and leaves.
And with Alec more or less begging her to stay, and asking that if she does find she's pregnant, she should let him know and he'll do everything he can for her!
…Or more or less bragging about it to her friends afterwards – “with a manner of superiority, as if recognizing that her experiences in the field of courtship had, indeed, been slightly enviable”. (The dramatisation was quite dishonest in showing her running off in tears, leaving Joan to cover for her.)
And as the narrator says: “But for the world’s opinion those experiences would have been simply a liberal education”. Which would be a bizarre thing to say if she had been the victim of a violent crime.
I've been reading these posts for some days now with interest and I finally thought I'd chip in.
I feel it's a touch disingenuous to selectively quote from the text and disregard the surrounding words that don't quite fit your interpretation. Putting your above quote in its full context makes the situation a lot more complex.
"Their chatter, their laughter, their good-humoured innuendoes, above all, their flashes and flickerings of envy, revived Tess's spirits also; and, as the evening wore on she caught the infection of their excitement and grew almost gay. The marble hardness left her face, she moved with something of her old bounding step, and flushed in all her young beauty.
At moments in spite of thought, she would reply to their inquiries with a manner of superiority, as if recognizing that her experiences in the field of courtship had, indeed, been slightly enviable. But so far was she from being, in the words of Robert South, 'in love with her own ruin,' that the illusion was transient as lightning; cold reason came back to mock her spasmodic weakness; the ghastliness of her momentary pride would convict her, and recall her to reserved listlessness again"
This rather more suggests that the infectious chatter and laughter of her friends helped her forget her troubles briefly (put thought aside entirely) and become for a moment her 'previous self', but evidently it doesn't take long for the reality of it all to hit home again. Also it's important to note in the quote the 'as if' as this suggests that although it might have appeared to her friends or indeed the observer in that moment (who knew nothing of the reality of what happened) that her experiences were enviable, to Tess herself they were anything but.
Regarding the question of the rape I think others have successfully argued the case for it based on the textual evidence in the relevant chapter of the book. What follows in the chapter afterwards is certainly more likely to be concerned with the relationship between Alec and Tess in the 'few weeks' she remained in Trantridge in 'confused surrender'. This is really what all the debate should be focussing on as here there is far more room for speculation. To my eye though there seems to be evidence in the language to suggest those weeks were a less than cordial experience for her, and her self lacerating reproach (she always seems quick to blame herself, which Alec is so masterful at exploiting as evidenced later in the book as well) " if I had ever sincerely loved you, if I loved you still, I should not so loathe and hate myself for my weakness as I do now!" This suggests she remained and reluctantly acted out the lie of reciprocating his ardour before she regained the strength to break from his traps.
Alec himself admits 'You don't give me your mouth and kiss me back. You never willingly do that' when they part and much later on at the threshing machine Tess reveals that in their relations 'there was never any warmth'. Both of which imply that those 'few weeks' were probably not a consentual rampant, heady and passionate sexual affair that she grew tired of but rather a more a reluctant surrender to his overpowering will.
Thank you so much, sausageandbun! I'd already replied to silverwhistle's selected quote and put it into context with the entire paragraph in 'The Independent got it right' thread. It really grates on me that instead of replying to that post, the selected quote is reposted here.
shareBut let's see. In the book, he stalks her, drugs her, carts her off to where she has no hope of flight or rescue and then has sex with her without consent.
If it was that clear in the book than it would hardly need discussion. I think you must be over simplying it a bit.
He did indeed drug her, causing her to splutter and cough; Hardy had to delete it due to the censors (he had to do a lot of this). She didn't partake in any of the dancing or drinking and just wanted to go home. Alec offers to give her a lift, she refuses and says she'd go back with the party that she came with. When she is being attacked by Car, he offers his services again, and she cannot help but accept - 'out of the frying pan and into the fire'.
shareYes he did, in every version (even the novel though it's very "concealed"), no matter how one looks at it, it still boils down to Tess being raped by Alec, that's what happened.
"I promise you before I die, I'll surely come to your doorstep"