Talk:Tess of the d'Urbervilles

Untitled

I have added a plot summary for this very important novel in British Literature Ivankinsman 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent picture that has been restored. Sorry I removed it by mistake! Ivankinsman 12:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:81.131.134.16, unable to use capital letters, created a duplicate article Tess of the d'urbervilles(see below), which is now a redirect. Someone might want to merge text from here. <KF> 13:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Issues-:Many people believed that the novel was too licentious and highly criticised the book. Many also believe that Tess was not raped.

Themes- Fatalism, Double Standard, Rape

Was she raped? Should she have been abandoned? Were Alec and Angel really that different? Does the book prove a point about Victorian social law? What is the symbolism? Is the book licentious?

In my opinion, a summary of the summary would be most appreciated. It is now by far too long to quickly get an overview of the story. 82.95.107.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC).

I suggest you write a shortened plot introduction to come before the plot summary to give a general plot overview. Ivankinsman (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Unanchored Reference

The article begins (skeletally) "The novel is set ... Tess is the oldest child ... However, John ... Knowledge of this immediately goes to John's head." The next paragraph begins "THAT SAME DAY, ..." but there was no prior reference to any DAY. The least anchor would be something like "The novel opens on a (certain) day and we are introduced to so-and-so."

Rape vs Seduction

The article, as currently written, takes the unambiguous position that Tess is Raped. However, this is (by my understanding) a point of contention among critics: whether Tess is raped or merely seduced. This is intentional: Hardy attempts to show that the treatment of Tess as a "Fallen woman" worthy of contempt is unjustified even if she willingly slept with Alec.

The literary argument probably isn't encyclopedic, but I'm changing the sentence from "he rapes her one evening as she is sleeping and she becomes pregnant" to "he rapes or seduces her one evening (Hardy is deliberately vague on this point) and she becomes pregnant." Nedlum

Sorry, but without a cite, this constitutes OR. Out of the refs given for this article, only one discusses the meaning of the encounter, and it unambiguously describes it as rape. I'm reverting. If you can find a source that discusses the event as ambiguous, please add it. I'm also deleting the first sentence in the next paragraph that states "After a few weeks of confused dalliance with Alec, Tess begins to despise him." There is nothing in the book to indicate that there is any flirtation, confused or otherwise, after the rape. 68.73.80.211 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone just reverted both edits without a discussion. Please present your arguments for reverting to the original research and inaccurate description. 68.73.80.211 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest, the effects of the Rape, and the fact that she kills Alec partly out of revenge for his destroying her younger self, and also the huge period of loss which Tess experiences in between the particular phases, and the fact Hardy was the character's 'only advocate' shows it was rape quite clearly; the fact the circumstances were that she was under the influence of drugs, and it was a willed act by Alec, clearly means it was rape and not seduction to me in every sense of the former word and in none of the sense of the second. Furthermore, the fact she lost her virginity by rape- and was punished by society for her innocence and trusting nature- and the fact she extracts the confession from Alec that "it is true, you have been more sinned against than sinned", destroys any argument about Hardy's intentions.

The tragic flaw of Tess, in one sense, can be seen as her innocence, coupled with her attractive and persuasive figure and personality (greatly described by Hardy, as has been commented on), and the fact her mistakes are not her own, for example Alec's re-infatuation with her, saying about how she has bewitched him (when she clearly hasn't tried in any sense, and in-fact disfigured herself before so that she wouldn't risk this and be "molested") means that the seduction argument is once more gone- as that implies a will behind the act from Tess, when she was drugged, effectively kidnapped, lied to- all of which she tried to avoid- means it was rape. Furthermore, the clear fact that Hardy didn't want to admit fault in Tess past her purity and closeness to nature (which led to the wretchedness in her life and the exploitation by others) means that her fall (apart from when killing Alec of course, but the justification even for this is clear to the reader considering his monomaniac pursuit of her) was none of her fault. That's the essence of the tragedy, and the fact it came from that scene of Rape means to call it otherwise would undermine the whole point of the tragedy, especially considering Hardy's clear attack on social conventions which stem from that are so strong and central.R.J. Croton —Preceding comment was added at 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, there is no doubt at all that Tess was raped by Alec. She is taken, against her will, into The Chase, only accepting his offer of a ride home on his horse to escape from the agression of the Queen of Spades. It is late at night, she is tired, and her defences are down and Alec takes full advantage of her situation. Ivankinsman (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb this after a long period of peace, but I don't think the bald statement that Alec raped Tess reflects Hardy's intention. A ref, with a quote, to demonstrate a bit more ambiguity added.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely an issue worth discussing here is that the nineteenth century understanding of a "seduction" included acts that we, in the twenty-first century, would now understand to be rape. What Hardy depicts in the novel is, I think, unambiguously a rape by twenty-first century standards, but was intended to be ambiguous by the nineteenth century standards to which Hardy and his readers adhered. I'd add that the intention to be ambiguous is supported by the introduction to my Penguin Classics version of the novel, written by Margaret Higonnet, who appears to be an English professor and Hardy specialist at the University of Connecticut. john k (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Green Flag

The plot summary mentions that a black flag is raised to announce Tess' execution. This is blatantly false. In actuality, it is a green flag. Please make this correction.

I re-checked and it is a black flag. Not sure why you think it is green since the colour black generally signifies death. Ivankinsman (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Baptism

I changed the section on the baptism of her child because I couldn't find a clear reference that the parson refused to do it. In that particular night, it is her father who prevents her from calling for the parson:

"It was nearly bedtime, but she rushed downstairs and asked if she might send for the parson ... No parson should come inside his door, he declared, prying into his affairs just then, when, by her shame, it had become more necessary to hide them. He locked the door and put the key in his pocket."

Also, she names the child Sorrow that very night and before.

Another quote to support my change is when she speaks to the parson ("he was a new-comer and did not know her") about the burial:

"Hearing of the baby's illness he had conscientiously gone to the house after nightfall to perform the rite, and unaware that the refusal to admit him had come from Tess's father and not from Tess..."

I'm currently reading the novel, so I hope I can help to make the summary more precise. Please check my grammar and spelling because I'm not a native English speaker. Zora11 12:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Editions

Seeing as there is extensive difference in the editions of the book, a section on this would be helpful. The Penguin Classics recent publication's footnotes shows the extent of the differences, but also it could be a section where the impact of the book at the time and the controversy surrounding it led to the various changes and prescriptions. R.J. Croton —Preceding comment was added at 11:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Musical Adaptation

Would greatly appreciate feedback regarding the relevance of the following information for inclusion in the "Adaptations" heading and/or as an external link...

In addition to the recent BBC mini-series, a new musical based on Tess of the d'Urbervilles is currently in development in New York. Music, Lyrics and Libretto written by Annie Pasqua, student of noted American concert pianist Morton Estrin. In November 2007, Tess, the new musical was featured at the Tilles Center for the Performing Arts on the Long Island University C.W. Post Campus and appeared at Don't tell mama in New York City in June 2008.

Official Tess, the new musical website [1]

Thank you for your consideration.
Leder214 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Naming

The title of the book is Tess of the D'Urbervilles, capitalised D. Can even be seen in the picture given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.25.109 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The common standard for book titles is to capitalise words apart from the minor words like prepositions (such as 'of') and definite articles (such as 'the'). In this case d' is a French preposition and should therefore be lowercase. In older books the standard was to capitalise all the letters in the title, and this can be seen on the book in the picture.86.31.10.25 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The title page to my Penguin Classics edition says "Tess of the D'Urbervilles." It was published in 1998. Perhaps we should do a survey of modern editions and see what they do? john k (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

British Library has placed a couple of pages of Hardy's manuscript online [2]. Initially, at least, he was using the capital.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at amazon, Dover Thrift uses "D'Urbervilles," Penguin Classics uses "D'Urbervilles," Oxford World Classics uses "D'Urbervilles," Modern Library uses "d'Urbervilles," Everyman's Library uses "D'Urbervilles," Norton appears to be inconsistent, Barnes & Noble uses "d'Urbervilles". In short, it doesn't seem terribly consistent. john k (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a correction. The Oxford World Classics edition, based on the Clarendon Text (widely regarded as the critical edition for the novel) uses d'Urbervilles, not D'Urbervilles. DORC (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Subtitle

The 1891 title page displayed in the article has the following line-breaks: "Tess of the d'Urbervilles / a pure woman // faithfully presented by / Thomas Hardy // in three volumes". Claiming that the subtitle is "a pure woman faithfully presented" (and no "by ...") seems insupportable on that basis. Is there another source for this? It appears in this research paper, which postdates its use in the article and is lacking specific attribution. I haven't been able to find it (using only Google search access) in the contemporary review in The Athenaeum given as a reference in the article. It is not hard to find other support for just "a pure woman" as the subtitle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.219.116 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Addition to Tess in popular culture section

Kim Newman's 2011 Professor Moriarty: The Hound of the D'Urbervilles, a parody of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Hound of the Baskervilles, borrows heavily from the plot and characters of Tess. Jay (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Phase the 5th "starve-acre"

If "starve-acre" is the term used by Hardy it should probably be indicated as such here, as a) it is obscure and b) the wiktionary entry does not have these words anywhere in it. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Excessively long plot summary

Another classic novel with an excessively long plot summary. WP:NOVELPLOT states that summaries should be usually 400 to 700 words and should be "concise", "although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more." The present summary is anything but: it currently stands at over 2400 words. I don't see any basis to exceed the 700 word guideline here, as the essential elements of the plot are no longer or more complicated than many other older novels. The fact that the book is a classic isn't in itself a good reason for ignoring the guideline. A summary of this length is of little use to a reader who visits Wikipedia to find out what the book is about. All it does at the moment is simply to reproduce the work under discussion, which WP:NOVELPLOT specifically says should not happen.

I'm planning to spend some time cutting this down, along the lines of the revisions that I and others made last year to Wuthering Heights. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Now done: 699 words not including the section headings. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)