Not attracted but dazzled
Posted by Constanza on September 11, 1998 at 11:29:33:
In response to Don't think so, but I must have!, written by Cheryl on September 11, 1998 at 11:12:43
] I see it as a seduction which became rape. Tess was an innocent, she had allowed kisses before and probably allowed them this time, but I have no doubt that she went unwillingly beyond that.
I think I agree with you. It makes sense
I do think that I have missed something though. Tess stayed there for a month after? And Alec continued his "attentions?"
Well, the event at The Chase took place in September and she left in late October. There are several references to their having been lovers...as well as the clothes Tess received from Alec and that she turned into dresses for her siblings.
And not, I don't think she was attracted, only confused by him:
"You didn't come for love of me, that I'll swear"
"Tis quite true. If I had gone for love o' you, if I had ever sincerely loved you, if I loved you still, I should not so loeathe and hate myself for my weakness as I do now!... My eyes were dazed by you for a little, and that was all"
I guess that "my weakness" is a reference to her having sayed with him as a lover; perhaps she even deceived herself into believing she was in love with her so as to make her behaviour "acceptable" for herself (and that is why she says "sincerely loved you").
- My theory Kay 21:30:56 9/11/98 (3)
- Thanks! That makes sense. (nfm) Cheryl 13:52:09 9/11/98 (0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.