Seduction, rape or both?
Posted by Constanza on September 11, 1998 at 09:17:58:
In response to Reading between the lines, written by Kay on September 09, 1998 at 16:40:39
So we have to read between the lines to discover what happened to Tess. Did anybody pick up any clues?
What do you think it was? At first I thought it was "seduction", because of three sentences:
"...Tess d' Duberville's mailed ancestors (snip) had dealt the same measure even more ruthlessly toward peasent girls of their time".
then Tess' reproach to Alec:
"I didn't understand your meaning till it was too late".
and then to her mother:
"Why didn't you tell me there was danger in men-folk?"
But then, in the second phase one of the peasant women says:
"A little more than persuading had to do wi' the coming o't, I reckon. There were they that heard a sobbing one night last year in The Chase; and it mid ha' gone hard wi' a certain party if folks had come along"
But if it was "rape" why did she stay as his mistress for one or two months?
Another thing that is puzzling me is how old "Sorrow" was? Hardy says that he has lived a few days, but it is June and Tess left by late October; it was September when she start her "association" with Alec, so the baby would have been born in June or July and he would have been one or two months old at the time of his death.
] And those of you who have been assigning to Joan the greater blame in Tess' pain, what say you to Sir John refusing Tess the comfort of a baptism for her dying baby?!? I say again, Grrrrrr!!
Both parents were equally to blame--Joan in setting forth Tess as bait and her father for being a do-nothing.
Yes, what a mistaken pride... he would send her daughter as a beggar to the d'Ubervilles but he would not let the parson baptize the child...
And Joan, blaming Tess for not having married the Alec, as if he would have ever considered that!
- Sorrow's age Cheryl 11:17:11 9/11/98
(0)
- She stayed because... Golda 10:34:04 9/11/98
(8)
- Help! Did I miss something? Kay 10:58:53 9/11/98
(7)
- Don't think so, but I must have! Cheryl 11:12:43 9/11/98
(6)
- Not attracted but dazzled Constanza 11:29:33 9/11/98
(5)
- My theory Kay 21:30:56 9/11/98
(3)
- double standard Barbara 22:53:36 9/13/98
(2)
- I agree Lesley 23:13:31 9/13/98
(1)
- Yes, well into the 20th century Jane 14:40:33 9/14/98
(0)
- Yes, well into the 20th century Jane 14:40:33 9/14/98
(0)
- I agree Lesley 23:13:31 9/13/98
(1)
- double standard Barbara 22:53:36 9/13/98
(2)
- Thanks! That makes sense. (nfm) Cheryl 13:52:09 9/11/98
(0)
- My theory Kay 21:30:56 9/11/98
(3)
- Not attracted but dazzled Constanza 11:29:33 9/11/98
(5)
- Don't think so, but I must have! Cheryl 11:12:43 9/11/98
(6)
- Help! Did I miss something? Kay 10:58:53 9/11/98
(7)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
