Tess of the D’Urbervilles discussion

I am not finished the book yet and realize that my question may be answered as I keep reading but I am impatient for spoilers now!!! I am at the point where she returns home after her night in the woods with Alec. It is clear that they have had sex, but was it forcible rape or was she ardently seduced and merely succumbed to his advances and now feels ashamed after the fact? Either way, I despise Alec but I do think there is a difference between being raped and being seduced.

I double checked on Wikipedia, in case my interpretation was wrong, it was rape.

I also did a little research online to see what others thought. It seems that plenty of academics have written papers debating this. I honestly can't come to my own conclusion yet. I am so angry with Thomas Hardy for making that part so vague. But I also think that may have been his point. I don't get the impression that he particularly cares for the rules of society at that time (Victorian England).

I have reread that part several times and it is hard for me to figure out whether he was a monster for raping a woman or if his was a licentious cad for seducing a virgin that he may or may not have had intentions of marrying. The thing that sways me toward thinking that she was seduced was when she talks to Alec on the way home and when she talks to her mother about what happened.

I've also seen references online to the fact that the book was changed for publication. One day I may do some further research to find out if the omitted parts are available to read. Oh well, thanks for your response. back to reading......

He gives her a drink that makes her sleepy, no? And then he rapes her. I wrote a blog posting about how subtle Hardy was in his description. Writing is so different now, so obvious and 'showy.' But she was passed out during the incident, which means rape.

I have read and discussed this topic for years now, sometimes heatedly. Although I lean toward the interpretation now sometimes loosely referred to as "date rape" -- some level of acceptance, but not really, and therefore rape, my best recollection is that Hardy rewrote this section, actually making it more ambiguous, and thus acknowledging the fundamental ambiguities that can accompany human sexuality. Still, he insisted upon affirming "A Pure Woman" as the subtitle. Regardless of the nuances of, even changes in, his own thinking or writing, he has certainly left a piece to challenge our own thoughts and values, even these many years later.

It was rape, but Hardy is pointing out the hypocrisy of the times. There was a double standard for women. A woman had to be a virgin to marry, but a man could have any number of adventures before he married. Tess is a victim of society's mores. Although she is an innocent victim, she is doomed from the start by the double standard for men and women.

It was what we might think of in our time as date rape. I just felt so badly for Tess because even if she did succumb to seduction from Alec because of what happens later. (I don't want to spoil it for you. But I will look at your discussion again, to see what you think about what does happen as a result.

I've finally finished the book. It was such a sad sad story. Poor poor Tess. Regardless of Alec's wrong doings on that night, all of that subsequent foolish pride was actually her biggest downfall, imo.

Re-reading again, I think you all are right. It falls into the category of what we now say is "date rape". He takes advantage of her while she is sleeping, but I also do still think that she eventually gives. I think she gives in because of what she says on page 80......

"She had dreaded him, winced before him, succumbed to adroit advantages he took of her helplessness; then, temporarily blinded by his ardent manners, had been stirred to confused surrender awhile"

Hardy, Thomas (1994-02-01). Tess of the d'Urbervilles (p. 80). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

"Confused surrender" isn't the same as "consent", though.

It's deliberately left vague so the reader can fill in the blanks.
I think both interpretations work. But the vagueness is why the social commentary is so powerful - about power and sex, about women's status at the time, about the way women who have had sex are perceived.
If it was more black and white Victorian readers would have been able to say - oh, Tess can still be a good person even if she had sex outside marriage because she was violently forced/was unconscious throughout. That wasn't the case - so it is much more challenging to society in the time it was written.

The fact that we are even debating to what degree she was raped indicates that as a society we still have a long way to go in our dealings with women's sexuality and, in my opinion, women's overall role in our society - that is, a sexual being. And Hardy's use of the line "confused surrender" seems indicative of him being a 'man of his times' who saw some injustice in the world, and not a forward thinking human being. That's maybe a bit harsh, but there you go.

I just read a short story by Cervantes in which a woman is snatched away raped and blindfolded and then, after giving birth and a few plot twists, is for some reason happy to marry her rapist. According to Cervantes, the fact of her virtue being taken is somehow equal to her loving the one who stole that virtue. Religious undertones abound.

Sorry for the aside...

Hayley wrote: "The fact that we are even debating to what degree she was raped indicates that as a society we still have a long way to go in our dealings with women's sexuality and, in my opinion, women's overall..."

I'm not convinced but what we have a long ways to go in our dealings with either women's or men's sexuality.

Try following the discussion here in goodreads on pedophilia and Lolita! (I wonder how many of the commentators ever finished, let alone reread the book.)

For some interesting viewpoints, Google and read the various news articles regarding Helen Gurley Brown, from NYT to the Guardian to Forbes to Marlo Thomas on Huffington Post to Slate, for starters.

I don't get it. How does the concept of seduction even exist here. A man comes across a young woman asleep in the grass late at night and has sexual relations with her. What would seduction look like? Did he pull out a bottle of champagne and some roses and start telling her how beautiful she was so she fell into his arms?

I studied this novel in high school over 40 years ago and the same topic came up. I did not understand then either. Can any woman tell me how seduction would come across as anything but sexual assault in our time.

As for Hardy's intention, I don't know that he would disagree with me. In Victorian times, the idea of seduction of a woman included the concept of a lie or misleading of a woman in an attempt to gain access to her body. I do not think he would have set Tess up as asleep on a dark road in the middle of the night if he had intended seduction. He would have had Aleck woo her earlier.

RK-ique wrote: "I don't get it. How does the concept of seduction even exist here. A man comes across a young woman asleep in the grass late at night and has sexual relations with her. What would seduction look..."

Let me preface this by saying that the book isn't very clear on what happened and the version that I read did not mention that she was drugged. That one detail actually changes everything for me. If he drugged her, it was rape. Nothing else that she says or does after that matters to me.

Based on the version that I read, some of the questions that I originally had were....Did she wake during the incident? (based on things that she's said about it after the fact, I think she did.) Did he actually hold her down and force her? (I think he did because the milkmaids report gossip about hearing sobbing in the Chase that night) Did she try to fight him off? (Most likely, yes) At any point, did she stop fighting? I think that she did stop fighting. She mentions "confused surrender" and succumbing to his ardent passions....she also doesn't leave to go home right away. Why not? She also talks about hating herself for her weakness and being temporarily dazed by him.

I doubt that this was their intention, but whoever told Thomas Hardy to removend other details of the incident was extremely brilliant for their time because the ambiguousness of the indident does so much more for the story imo and speaks volumes about the plight of women during that time. Whether she was raped or seduced, she was ruined in society's view either way.

I thought there was something written about her crying just before the act.

I think, and it has been awhile, I read it as her being raped, especially with some of the hints given beforehand; rose thorns causing her to bleed, freaking her out with the horse ride, the forced kiss, the woman exclaiming that she was jumping from one bad situation into a worse.

She was raped.
It's a very painful book to read as parts are so tragic. But it's one of my faves

It was rape.

If you use the word seduction, it will be:
- to use an euphemism
- to think in the Social mores where the woman is unfairly blamed even for her own misfortunes

The social mores of that time make think that Tess was seduced thus she was a sinner.

Alec deserved to die (or something worse than that).

Ironically, in our times, there are women who are still blamed of being stalked, molested, harrased, pestered, raped, etc. because "they provoke it and let it happen".

The themes dealt with are adult as opposed to 'teen'. I would suggest that it would be appropriate for a 15 year old who is accustomed to adult lit. Otherwise I would suggest that 17 would be fine for a young reader who is entering the world of adult fiction for the first time. The themes in 'Tess'are rather complicated and would not be appreciated by someone accustomed only to teen series books. Good book for discussion with a young reader though.

Sunburst wrote: "What ages would you say this book is appropriate for?"

I guess HS age and up. Possibly even middle school age.

I read this as a 17 or 18 year old HS Sr. I didn't find it shocking or too mature. On the other hand, I am sure that I would understand his themes and social statements much differently now that I am more than a few years older.

I read this in 6th form in the eighties, so 16-18. The Mayor of Casterbridge was our "A" level text but as our teacher was a big Hardy fan we also covered Tess and Jude in detail. I'm not sure I would have been mature enough to fully appreciate them any younger than that - but reading them at that age has given me an enduring love of Hardy (and gave some of my friends an enduring dislike of all things Hardy!)

Lynda wrote: "I read this in 6th form in the eighties, so 16-18. The Mayor of Casterbridge was our "A" level text but as our teacher was a big Hardy fan we also covered Tess and Jude in detail. I'm not sure I w..."

Hi, Lynda! I read this in 6th form too. I thought Tess was raped back then, but my literature teacher had said that Tess was seduced. I was too young to fully understand it though.

Amy wrote: "Lynda wrote: "I read this in 6th form in the eighties, so 16-18. The Mayor of Casterbridge was our "A" level text but as our teacher was a big Hardy fan we also covered Tess and Jude in detail. I'..."

As I mentioned, seducing is a not-so-harsh word to say rape. I just can't believe that she got seduced because that would mean that she had let him do what he wanted without showing resistance or that she didn't dislike it.

We can say that it could have been consensual rape.

She was raped.
I agree with metty; it is indeed a painful story.

Now that I have finished, I think that part was left vague on purpose. The point isn't whether she was raped or not or who is to blame for what happened. In those times, it didn't matter because the woman is considered "ruined" in society either way. I think that is the tragedy and injustice that Thomas Hardy wanted the reader to focus on.

Raped.

seduced..

In the version I have (penguin classic) even in the footnotes it states, "On the legal premise that a 'sleeping woman is incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse', see William A Davis, Jr, 'The Rape of Tess: Hardy, English Law, and the Case for Sexual Assault.'"

This part of the novel is not vague - it's just not written like 50 Shades of Grey - but I do agree that the main point that Hardy was making is that she was 'ruined' either way. But it's the 21st century and to call this seduction is, in my view, utterly ridiculous.

Hayley wrote: "In the version I have (penguin classic) even in the footnotes it states, "On the legal premise that a 'sleeping woman is incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse', see William A Davis, Jr, 'T..."

I don't think it is ridiculous at all. A sleeping woman would wake up. She also stays with him for several weeks after. I got the impression that they had some type of romantic involvement during those weeks. I can see where all of the debate surrounding it stems from. Just for the record, I do think she was raped.

Others have mentioned that in some versions, Tess was drugged. Had that been in the version that I read, I think my initial opinion on what happened would have been completely different.

RAPED!!!!!!! Hardy couldn't come right out and say it because novelists in that era couldn't even describe or discuss consenual sex without facing censorship, public outrage and prosecution. Which Hardy did face for at least one of his other novels, I might add. In reference to the comments suggesting if it was really rape why would she have stayed with him afterwards.... in this era women, especially those of Tess's socio-cultural/economic status, had practically no power or control over anything. Alec controlled her, manipulated her, and used her for his own gains. I would have thought that to anyone reading this novel the nature of their relationship and what he does to her would be blatantly obvious, hardly open to interpretation....

Elise wrote: "RAPED!!!!!!! Hardy couldn't come right out and say it because novelists in that era couldn't even describe or discuss consenual sex without facing censorship, public outrage and prosecution. Which ..."

There is tons of debate on it, though. People have written extensively on both sides of it. Why would that be if it is "hardly open to interpretation"?

I think it is clearly open to interpretation.

"People have written extensively on both sides of it."

That may be true, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily open to interpretation. You should remember that some people also have a hard time believing modern-day women who say they were raped,
and I would suspect that it is these very same type of people who don't think Tess was raped. If this story came out on the news today I bet anything that there would be rape apologists claiming that Tess led him on, that he couldn't control himself around her because she was so beautiful, that she shouldn't have let him take her into the forest at night, etc. I think it's pretty obvious that she was raped, if you follow context clues. Tess had made it entirely clear that she didn't like Angel; she refused ALL of his advances up to that point, even kisses on the cheek; she didn't even want a ride from him, but he insisted. As Alisha said, how could she possibly comply to sex when she didn't even know what it was? He was the one who led her into a forest at night and waited until she was asleep and her guard was down. It was completely a rape.

Hardy does not tell us. He does not describe the event, only some of the actions leading up to it and following it, but not the event itself, so, yes, it is vague, and deliberately so. His point -- the point of this entire book -- is that it did not matter. As far as society was concerned, all that mattered was that she had lost her virginity outside of marriage. How it happened was irrelevant to society at that time.

She is asleep, but she is not drugged. There are not multiple versions of the story. You can easily check.

As for those of us who admit that the story is ambiguous having a "hard time believing modern-day women who say they were raped," I suggest that you seriously re-think that slander.

Elise wrote: "RAPED!!!!!!! Hardy couldn't come right out and say it because novelists in that era couldn't even describe or discuss consenual sex without facing censorship, public outrage and prosecution. Which ..."

Read "Clarissa," then get back to us.

Hayley wrote: "He gives her a drink that makes her sleepy, no? And then he rapes her. I wrote a blog posting about how subtle Hardy was in his description. Writing is so different now, so obvious and 'showy.' ..."

No.

I see some confusion about Tess's drugging in here. It actually existed in the text.
In 1981, the first edition of the book, Alec poured his druggists' bottle to her mouse to warm her up. I don't think she slept though the whole time, but most likely she was cordial during the action. It strongly indicate rape. However, Through Hardy's successive revisions, Alec's drugging part is removed, and texts that inplies involvement of Tess's part are added, such as " my eyes were dazed by you for a moment, that was all", etc. Hardy intensionally blurred the line between rape and seduction, and made it more ambiguous. ( So, Tess is drugged only in the first eddiition.)

All Hardy tells us is, Tess had a sexual relationship with Alec and lasted for about a month. That's it. According Tess, it sounds like their relationship was somewhat consensual, but the question where the argument is coming from is their first union, night at the Chase.

Some said it doesn't matter, in this thread. Maybe. But for me, how can I judge Alec, or Tess's murder of Alec, and Angel's judgement of Tess, without knowing it....

I read some critical studies about it, and it seems to me it is an unsolvable issue. One of the recent strong critics is "rape followed by seduction" ( William A Davis, Jr), but how is it logical when it comes to human feelings?

Does any woman willingly let your rapist have sex with her???
Some women fantasize about rape? Does it explain Tess's feelings?

I kind of view it as both, personally - a seduction & a rape.

Hardy was a naturalist. He thought that sex before marriage was fine - he actually didn't approve of marriage at all (which is why he wrote "Jude the Obscure.")

Also, I'm not sure that the Victorians thought about rape in the same terms that we do today (haven't researched it, but this would be an interesting area to look into). So while I think the act falls under date rape according to our standards, I'm not sure that Hardy considered the act rape.

It has been a few years since I re-read Tess, but I thought that she woke up and responded to his kiss. Yet she had been drinking, and Alec was always pushing her to go further than she was comfortable. Therefore, I had the impression that she was okay with the kissing, but that he took advantage of her, and she did not realize how far he was going until it was too late.

The interesting thing, however, is that she stays in the house & continues to have intimate relations with him. This behavior is not uncommon in date rape victims, but I don't think Hardy would have seen this behavior as that of a victim. Tess may have been taken advantage of that night, but sex is natural - I think that Hardy was trying to portray Tess behaving in a natural way (that is, continuing to have sex). Though she would be ashamed b/c society would look down on such actions.

Readingmom wrote: "I kind of view it as both, personally - a seduction & a rape.

........

The interesting thing, however, is that she stays in the house & continues to have intimate relations with him. This behavior is not uncommon in date rape victims, but I don't think Hardy would have seen this behavior as that of a victim. Tess may have been taken advantage of that night, but sex is natural - I think that Hardy was trying to portray Tess behaving in a natural way (that is, continuing to have sex). Though she would be ashamed b/c society would look down on such actions. ."

I agree with Hardy's view of sex in nature. 
Hardy defends Tess's "purity" in her initial relation to Alec by using Natural law. She was made to break social law, but in nature, sex is natural and what she did was natural, so she did nothing wrong. So that's why she remains "pure" in spite of her fall in Hardy's eyes. However, interestingly, by using natural law to defend Tess, it also excuses Alec's behavior. (this is another matter)

So you are saying she remained for a while after the rape, if she was, because she had a sexual nature. That kind of makes sense. 

You also said "This behavior is not uncommon in date rape victims", is it really? 
I need to research in date rape victims, it sounds like beyond my imagination. Haha.

I studied this book in my first year of sixth form, and the class was pretty much divided, some said rape and some said she asked for it. My opinion is that her naivety made her vulnerable to Alecs advances. Tess even tells her mother, that unlike her, other girls, are able to read about men like him in books and that their mothers teach them to beware of them. The fact that her mother didn't talk to her about the kind of sleaze bags like Alec, who are out their shows pretty poor parenting. I would definitely say that she was raped, because she didn't want to have sex with him, and as her mother didn't prepare her for the world, it is her mothers fault.

Joan is responsible to send her daughter there alone, knowing what is going to happen with her. She even said, " he(Alec) don't marry her afore (having sex with her) he will after." She was basically whoreing Tess out.

I was wondering, it seems like using sex and pregnancy as leverage was what farm girls often did to secure marriage back then, at least in Hardy's world. In Jude, his first wife Arabella did the same thing. But of course he has responsibility in his own act.

I don't think reading novels ever teach Tess anything (lol), that's her naive thought.

I don't think Tess ever wanted to have sex with Alec, or even thought about it, because of her naïveté. If it is against will, it is rape. But, Alec tricked her into a liaison with him for a while, so I rather say "manipulation". However, her experience with Alec at Trantridge served its purpose, as her sexual awakening.

Even now, we as a society tend to blame women for their own rape. You chose to drink? You kissed him? What were you wearing?

And in literature and culture, there's the perception that if a man "just can't help himself," it's because he's at least a little bit in love with his victim. if you read romance novels of the 1970's and 1980's, they are often very "rape-y" and end with the hero and heroine riding off into the sunset for the Happily Ever After.

Yes, rape victims DO marry their rapists - who are sometimes their longtime boyfriends. Or they are already married to them. The waters get very muddy when you are already having sex with someone and you say no, not tonight, and are eventually pressured or even forced either into sex or into a sex act you'd rather not (not too many years ago there was a Surgeon General accused by his ex-wife of giving her sleeping pills and then anally raping her in her sleep). If you go to the police, it's a "He Said/She Said" scenario - and women in that position don't really WANT to either have their partner sent to jail, or to believe it's "really" rape, because of what that says about their relationship.

IMO, Tess was raped and she herself didn't want to live with that belief.

Beverly wrote: "Even now, we as a society tend to blame women for their own rape. You chose to drink? You kissed him? What were you wearing?

And in literature and culture, there's the perception that if a man "ju..."

While I agree with what you say, in general, I also think it's important to take into account the perceptions of the time period in which a piece is written. You mention romance novels of the '70s & '80s - but what about the Victorian times in which Tess was written?

It's fine to say that according to today's standards, Tess was raped. And I think most people who read the novel think she was taken advantage of. But I'm curious as to what view you think Hardy was trying to get across?

Readingmom wrote: But I'm curious as to what view you think Hardy was trying to get across? I think Hardy was saying that regardless of the standards of Victorian time, which would say Tess was seduced/asking for it, or even Tess's own "spin," Tess was raped, hence the subtitle "A Pure Woman."

Beverly wrote: "I think Hardy was saying that regardless of the standards of Victorian time, which would say Tess was seduced/asking for it, or even Tess's own 'spin,' Tess was raped, hence the subtitle 'A Pure Woman.""

Thank you for clarifying. I think many would agree with you, though I, personally, do not. I think Hardy was arguing that it was society that was "impure," by making people feel guilty for perpetrating natural acts. (Though, as I've stated previously, by current cultural standards, I do think Tess was date raped. I just don't think that's necessarily how Hardy saw the situation.)

I also, however, think that it is very difficult to separate current cultural biases from interpretations of historical texts.

There are, of course, arguments on both sides of this argument. I found this discussion of some viewpoints on Victorianweb.org, which is a pretty interesting read: http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/h...

I don't think it's as easy as Tess is raped because she is a "pure woman". If so, how does she withstand the fact that she became Alec's mistress after the incident for a while, and later again after Angel's rejection, or even murder? Hardy's "pure" is, I think, nothing to do with her body, rather with her spirit. Even her body is sullen, she kept her dignity, good intentions, self sacrifice to her family, and devotion, also in spite of her phisycal attractiveness, she never intentionally tried to seduce men's attentions.

Here is what Alec said to her about her purity, and it explaines all.

"I never despised you; if I had I should not love you now! Why I did not despise you was on account of your being unsmirched in spite of all; you withdrew yourself from me so quickly and resolutely when you saw the situation; you did not remain at my pleasure; ".

This is ironical that Alec was the one who believed her as pure, not Angel. Also, this is notable that his words also indicate that Tess once gave herself to him. So Tess's purity is nothing to do with whether she was raped or not. Hardy defends Tess's purity by using many standards, and the Nature is one of them, ( Nature with capital "N"), in Nature, sex is natural and she didn't do nothing wrong. Hardy is opposed to Victorian female heroines; called " a doll", who are modest and have no sexual feelings.

Love this novel.

Tess was definitely raped.

Simone wrote: "Interesting viewpoint, I really like your interpretation Mimi!

Would be good to go back and read it again to get a fresh view on it (I haven't read it in 5 years)."

Thanks, Simone. When I first read it, I wasn't sure. I was shocked by the outcome. But second time, it deeply touched me.

To tell the truth, despite of Hardy's defense,I think Tess is a bit of a slut... Hardy never describes what happened and how Tess felt in the Chase, and never reveals her letter and her confession, as well as her return to Alec and the murder. Hardy uses silence, which means he is hiding something....
I excuse the first sin for her innocence, but she committed adultery, and the murder, come on! When she committed the murder, for me, her purity was completely gone. It wasn't a self defense.
"Can you forgive me that I killed him?" "I didn't love him at all, Angel, as I loved you." What a woman's reason! ha ha...

I think Tess was seduced. When she says 'my eyes were dazed by you for a while' I believe she is talking about Alec's slow seduction of her leading up to her consensual 'in the moment' lust for him too. Tess is in harmony with nature yet pulls away from this wanting to be also enmeshed in society and to feel 'proper'. It creates friction in her character causing her discord and self-shame at a natural act and reaction to Alec's sexual advances. The fact that Tess feels as though she needs to reign herself in all the time and hide her true being indicates that she is a sexual being. Hardy is, of course, vague surrounding this whole encounter but to discard her sexual awakening as 'rape' is far too simplistic in my opinion and reductive to her character. It fails to recognise her sexual identity, even if it's one that clashes with her idealised image of herself.

I say she was raped. Even if she eventually gave in to Alec, he pestered her relentlessly, which is coercion. Tess definitely would not have had sex or a relationship with him if he had left her alone when she said no, over and over again. She was raped, and I am shocked that Wikipedia says she was seduced. Not wanting any spoilers, I only read the Wikipedia summary after I had read the corresponding chapters of the book, and was confused and wondered if I had misinterpreted the rape of Tess as something else. I don't think I did.

Noemi wrote: "Love this novel.

Tess was definitely raped."

Yes on both counts. Loved the book, and Tess was raped.