Tess of the D'Urbervilles (Penguin Classics)

Rating:
Summary: Like a bad TV movie
Review: This book, while perhaps well written, is just so ridiculous and self-contradictory that it's maddening to read. While it's necessary to forgive him some annoying parts of his style as being a part of his age, one cannot overlook the horrible plot and characterization.

Not one of the characters in the entire book is coherent or believable. He begins with a stereotype--the innocent country lass (Tess), the skeptical intellectual (Angel), the depraved rich dandy (Alec)--describing mainly their appearance and superficial thoughts, so that they never rise above the stereotype. Then, if they stereotype doesn't suit the plot, he'll simply have them act in complete contradiction of their previous shoddy characterization, without any explanation of how they might have changed. Angel's rejection of Tess, for example--he, the skeptical nonconformist who questions conventional social mores, suddenly repudiates Tess for being the victim of a rape, despite his own questionable conduct. I might expect that behavior from a conceited hypocrite, but not the all-around good guy that Hardy has made Angel out to be. And it's not like we've made a discovery here about Angel's real nature, because Hardy goes right on describing him the way he had before. Of course, he takes her back, which is perhaps believable, except that he has not a moment of hesitation when he finds out she murdered Alec. So when your wife tells you she was raped, you leave her, but when she kills someone, you help her to escape without even a second thought?

Then there's Tess. She seems like a pretty resourceful and sensible girl right up to the point where Angel leaves her for a stupid reason and she spends the next five years or whatever pining for him. She writes him one scolding letter, and then regrets it. And even though she can't muster the courage to approach Angel's father, or tell Angel off, or rebuff the advance of Alec--although Hardy describes her as having "natural fearlessness" at one point--she can somehow stab Alec later.

Alec, of course, is the one who first becomes a preacher because someone talks to him on the road, and then gives it up because Tess is just too darn beautiful. You'd think some more convincing would be needed for either conversion, but nope, Hardy can't spare any time for actual character development when he could describe Talbothays again.

Finally, I can take an example from a minor character. At one point in the book Hardy describes Izz Huett, a milkmaid, as "by nature the sauciest and most caustic" of the milkmaids; a mere 20 pages later he describes her as "a girl of tact." Did he read what he wrote before sending it to the publisher?

Aside from the contradictions in every one of his major characters (and a lot of the minor ones too), there are also points in the book that are just plain ridiculous. I mean, Stonehenge? Come on. How cheesy can you get? Not to mention the fact that he sent sixteen cops after them so they could be surrounded in the morning. It's as if he put stuff into his book because he thought it would be cool. Same deal with Angel going to BRAZIL. Also, apparently Angel can pick berries with his whip. Hardy also tends to get carried away with his own writing. He once mentions the plains of Brazil (if by "plains" he meant "rain forest") and describes a cow's "large-veined udders."

Lastly, the book oozes prejudices about country folk and women--mostly to the effect that they're naive and ignorant. In fact, Hardy seems to share the prejudices of Angel Clare. In any case, this book is a lot of reading in return for all the reward of a trashy romance novel.

Rating:
Summary: Like a bad TV movie
Review: This book, while perhaps well written, is just so ridiculous and self-contradictory that it's maddening to read. While it's necessary to forgive him some annoying parts of his style as being a part of his age, one cannot overlook the horrible plot and characterization.

Not one of the characters in the entire book is coherent or believable. He begins with a stereotype--the innocent country lass (Tess), the skeptical intellectual (Angel), the depraved rich dandy (Alec)--describing mainly their appearance and superficial thoughts, so that they never rise above the stereotype. Then, if they stereotype doesn't suit the plot, he'll simply have them act in complete contradiction of their previous shoddy characterization, without any explanation of how they might have changed. Angel's rejection of Tess, for example--he, the skeptical nonconformist who questions conventional social mores, suddenly repudiates Tess for being the victim of a rape, despite his own questionable conduct. I might expect that behavior from a conceited hypocrite, but not the all-around good guy that Hardy has made Angel out to be. And it's not like we've made a discovery here about Angel's real nature, because Hardy goes right on describing him the way he had before. Of course, he takes her back, which is perhaps believable, except that he has not a moment of hesitation when he finds out she murdered Alec. So when your wife tells you she was raped, you leave her, but when she kills someone, you help her to escape without even a second thought?

Then there's Tess. She seems like a pretty resourceful and sensible girl right up to the point where Angel leaves her for a stupid reason and she spends the next five years or whatever pining for him. She writes him one scolding letter, and then regrets it. And even though she can't muster the courage to approach Angel's father, or tell Angel off, or rebuff the advance of Alec--although Hardy describes her as having "natural fearlessness" at one point--she can somehow stab Alec later.

Alec, of course, is the one who first becomes a preacher because someone talks to him on the road, and then gives it up because Tess is just too darn beautiful. You'd think some more convincing would be needed for either conversion, but nope, Hardy can't spare any time for actual character development when he could describe Talbothays again.

Finally, I can take an example from a minor character. At one point in the book Hardy describes Izz Huett, a milkmaid, as "by nature the sauciest and most caustic" of the milkmaids; a mere 20 pages later he describes her as "a girl of tact." Did he read what he wrote before sending it to the publisher?

Aside from the contradictions in every one of his major characters (and a lot of the minor ones too), there are also points in the book that are just plain ridiculous. I mean, Stonehenge? Come on. How cheesy can you get? Not to mention the fact that he sent sixteen cops after them so they could be surrounded in the morning. It's as if he put stuff into his book because he thought it would be cool. Same deal with Angel going to BRAZIL. Also, apparently Angel can pick berries with his whip. Hardy also tends to get carried away with his own writing. He once mentions the plains of Brazil (if by "plains" he meant "rain forest") and describes a cow's "large-veined udders."

Lastly, the book oozes prejudices about country folk and women--mostly to the effect that they're naive and ignorant. In fact, Hardy seems to share the prejudices of Angel Clare. In any case, this book is a lot of reading in return for all the reward of a trashy romance novel.

Rating:
Summary: Want to read the classics, start with Tess
Review: What is the point of reading classic literature if all you are going to do is analyse it? What a waste. Hardy, Austen et al would be turning in their graves if they knew that their work would be treated in this way by self-proclaimed experts. Classic novels are to be enjoyed; they are written for the satisfaction of all readers, not just to massage the egos of academics.

Yes, I've studied classic literature, and it isn't the genre I am typically interested in. However, "Tess of the d'urbervilles" is the novel that has inspired me to give this genre another try. I found it to be incredibly moving; dismissing the idea that it was poorly written. I've found English literature too stifled by its own airs and graces, but this is not the case with Thomas Hardy. He paints a picture of great hope in a way that allows us to empathise (unlike some of his contemporaries) with the characters of a different era.

I recommend anyone who wants to start reading classic English literature to begin with "Tess of the d'urbervilles". You will find it an easily accessible read. It is beautiful, hopeful and tragic.