The Return of the Native (by Thomas Hardy)
Imagine yourself being a lively, vibrant young person stuck with a bunch of hicks in an insular location where nothing ever happens. (It may not be that big a stretch.) What can you do to amuse yourself? What would you do to get out?
The Return of the Native is a traditional 19th century novel by one of the great English novelists, Thomas Hardy. You’ll find that it’s kind of slow-paced for our tastes. But stick with it. The characters are interesting, and the situations they find themselves in are compelling. Hardy liked to subject his characters to the vagaries of fate, and that is certainly in evidence in The Return of the Native.
Warning: this book starts off slow. Real slow. It's a loving description of Egdon Heath, the setting for this novel. (The chapter gives you some idea of what it feels like for Eustacia to have to live there.)
Try to get through it. The heath is an important character in the novel. But, rest assured, the whole book is not like this. Once we start getting into characters, and especially plot, you'll like it. However, if -- and only if -- you would find yourself giving up on Hardy, (or starting to consider alternative paths), you have my permission to skip ahead. Try a paragraph or two, or to the end of the chapter if need be. But then start in again. Stick with it. You'll be glad you did.
Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee that this will be the least popular of the summer reading books. Well, tough. I believe that a lot of AP teachers create their summer reading lists for their colleagues rather than their students ("See what my students are reading!"). I don't do that. This is the most traditional of the summer reading books. It's a good novel, historically important, and something you should be capable of at least bulling your way through, if not enjoying.
For what it's worth, I read it first when I was a senior in high school, and I loved it. (Holden Caulfield even likes Eustacia, and he hates everything!)
You can find the text online here. Kindle has several editions, some for free, some for only 99 cents. I'd still go with a good old-fashioned book.
The Return of the Native is a traditional 19th century novel by one of the great English novelists, Thomas Hardy. You’ll find that it’s kind of slow-paced for our tastes. But stick with it. The characters are interesting, and the situations they find themselves in are compelling. Hardy liked to subject his characters to the vagaries of fate, and that is certainly in evidence in The Return of the Native.
Warning: this book starts off slow. Real slow. It's a loving description of Egdon Heath, the setting for this novel. (The chapter gives you some idea of what it feels like for Eustacia to have to live there.)
Try to get through it. The heath is an important character in the novel. But, rest assured, the whole book is not like this. Once we start getting into characters, and especially plot, you'll like it. However, if -- and only if -- you would find yourself giving up on Hardy, (or starting to consider alternative paths), you have my permission to skip ahead. Try a paragraph or two, or to the end of the chapter if need be. But then start in again. Stick with it. You'll be glad you did.
Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee that this will be the least popular of the summer reading books. Well, tough. I believe that a lot of AP teachers create their summer reading lists for their colleagues rather than their students ("See what my students are reading!"). I don't do that. This is the most traditional of the summer reading books. It's a good novel, historically important, and something you should be capable of at least bulling your way through, if not enjoying.
For what it's worth, I read it first when I was a senior in high school, and I loved it. (Holden Caulfield even likes Eustacia, and he hates everything!)
You can find the text online here. Kindle has several editions, some for free, some for only 99 cents. I'd still go with a good old-fashioned book.
Before You Start Hating on Eustacia. . .
ReplyDeleteI think people overlook the fact that she’s just a kid. She’s your age. (In some ways she’s older than your are, but in other ways she’s younger.) She’s expected to get married, soon – that’s what girls her age did back then. But she is far more inexperienced and naïve in the ways of the world than you are. Don’t hold her to your standards.
And she’s in exile. Edgon Heath is Siberia to her, or the Nevada desert. It’s a wasteland. There’s nobody her age, to speak of. She has no girlfriends. Yes, she considers herself socially above everybody else – but England at this time is a very class-conscious society. (And come on – f you suddenly went to spend Senior Year in Ashland, Maine, say – population 1300, median family income $40,000 – how would you feel?)
She desperately wants out. (When she is offered a ~job~, she recoils. People in her station of life don’t do that. (Like Hedda, she’s from a well-to-do family, but ~not~ well-to-do.)
And then Eustacia becomes the poor mouse being played with by the cruel cat, Fate.
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteI am halfway through the novel right now and am currently unsure of what to think of Mrs. Yeobright. It often seems that she is brutal to her niece, Thomasin, and her son, Clym. She originally rejects Thomasin's marriage to Damon Wildeve, creating much family tension. Later, she completely disregards Thomasin's marriage offer from Diggory Venn (the reddleman), outside of using it to sway Wildeve to quickly marry Thomasin before someone else does. She does this despite the clear distinction that Venn is of better morality and cares more about Yeobright's niece than Wildeve does. Then, after Clym decides to permanently return home to marry Eustacia Vye and become a schoolmaster, Mrs. Yeobright basically disowns her own son. However, it is still clear that she cares for her family, as she strives for them to be seen by others on the heath as superior and successful. She even sends Clym his share of the family inheritance despite her anger with him. Although her intentions are good, I believe that Mrs. Yeobright is mixing up her priorities. It almost seems as if she cares more about her own reputation than her family's happiness. She wants to avoid personal humiliation (and in her eyes, Thomasin's and Clym's humiliation) more so than she wants her family to be happy. Either that, or she has a different view of what a happy life looks like. Does anyone think that she is being too harsh and self-centered as well, or this kind of behavior merely in accordance with the beliefs of the time?
Gavin Rublewski
Hello Gavin,
DeleteAs I was reading the novel I also believed that Mrs. Yeobright was harsh towards her loved ones. Upholding a good reputation plays a large role in her life, as you had mentioned before she does completely disregard Venn's want to marry her niece on the account that marrying Damon would look better than marrying Diggory, but I believe she still somewhat manages to look out for both Thomasin and Clym. I agree she was rather blunt when it came down to her expressing her feelings on the marriages, but in another sense she was merely looking out for both of their well beings. Mrs. Yeobright could be less harsh, but I think she has good intentions. If she was mainly focused on reputation alone, I feel she wouldn't have disapproved of the marriages as much has she had. Along with her harshness, I found Mrs. Yeobright to be rather stubborn. Throughout the novel she waited for others to apologize to her. Yet, later in the novel I found it interesting when she gave in and went to see Clym and make up with Eustacia. In this instance, I recognized that she can be a brutally honest woman, but caring and wanted nothing more than reciprocated love from her family, especially her only son. Mrs.Yeobright is a rather complicated character who controls her emotions very well, but sometimes we see how she truly feels. It is very clear to see the love she has for son and sometimes Thomasin. Throughout the novel she makes snarky comments against Eustacia and Clym's new life, this passive aggressive behavior reveals how lonely her son has left her.
Hello to both of you!
DeleteI couldn't help but agree with what both of you were claiming in regards to Mrs. Yeobright being a very complex character. Yet, I don't think that she was harsh to her family in a negative way as it was the love she had for both of them that pushed her to only want the best for her relatives. While I do think she could have been much more understanding in the wants of her loved ones I think she was acting in a way where she put what she believed their best interests to be first. In the end of the novel this is further seen as she was able to push her desire for a perfect reputation aside in order to try and make things right with her son. Personally I find the saddest part to be that when she finally wanted to make things right she was left to believe that the wall built up between them could never be torn down again, and that was the last thing she thought about before she died.
-Peighton Stirt
DeleteHi all!
DeleteI agree that from a modern viewpoint, Mrs. Yeobright's harshness toward her son and her niece appears to be at least somewhat unfounded. However, I would like to point out a quotation from the scene in which she is outside of her son's house hoping for reconciliation: "To any other person than a mother it might have seemed a little humiliating that she, the elder of the two women, should be the first to make advances" (Hardy 88). Here, the two women mentioned are Mrs. Yeobright and Eustacia Vye. In highlighting the fact that the former is a mother and the elder of the two, the narrator indicates that Mrs. Yeobright is willing to break societal norms and face some level of shame for the love of her son. She is willing to show submission to the young Eustacia in order to win him back. I believe that this indicates that Mrs. Yeobright is truly a loving mother and aunt. It has been mentioned already that her austere nature is likely a result of the time in which the novel was written; I agree with this sentiment. I would like to add that she is actually willing to break from the norm in order to demonstrate her love, so she is in reality a caring mother.
-Meghan Myles
Mrs. Yeobright's harsh actions are her attempt at caring for her children. As mentioned a person's image in society was very important at this time. Mrs. Yeobright thought she was helping Clym when he discouraged him from being a schoolmaster. She felt or a man from his status to swoop that low was a terrible idea. By trying to discourage it she felt that she was saving him from being looked down upon by others. She felt that if she let him take that job she would be abandoning him to an impulsive decision that would ruin his reputation and eventually his life. The societal norms of the time are to blame for her harshness towards Clym. She was trying to prevent him from sabotaging himself in a society where appearance was often times more important that who a person truly was. Her motherly love comes across as harsh to us, but at the time it may have seemed caring.
DeleteMichael Angers
Hi everyone,
DeleteSocietal norms explain a lot of Mrs. Yeobright's actions, and I strongly agree that her unpleasant actions are her way of caring for loved ones. In the end, when she finally goes to reconcile with Clym and Eustacia and is met with a closed door, she feels rejected and saddened. This really shows that she does feel compassion for her kids and wants what is best for them. Simultaneously, she wishes to hold up the family status, which causes several situations, such as Clym becoming a schoolmaster, to be dramatic. Even though her actions and emotions come off as uncaring throughout the novel, she is only trying to do what she believes is best for the family. The mere fact that she wanted forgiveness from her son emphasizes that she does care.
-Michelle Marie
Hey, guys...
DeleteI agree with Michael and Michelle about the idea that Mrs. Yeobright's actions are influenced by the societal norms at the time. I believe that she definitely cares about her son (or else she wouldn't bother offering her opinion to him), but her motives may be selfish.
The story depicts Clym as a "hero" because he left the Heath to go to Paris (sort of a rags to riches kind of plot). Mrs. Yeobright probably took a great deal of pride in that and must have been (slightly) disappointed when he came back to the Heath (in her mind, he may no longer be seen as a "hero" upon his return). There is a possibility that she offers what some may see as "cruelty" as a form of what she sees as tough love (to push him to return to Paris and continue the "hero" status).
However, because most parents take pride in their children and want to be able to boast about their accomplishments, Mrs. Yeobright may be thinking more of her own image when she is seemingly cruel to Clym. She wants Clym to succeed so that town sees her son thriving, which, in turn, makes her look better.
Hi all,
DeleteI had a similar issue at first-I felt like Mrs. Yeobright didn't have a huge purpose in the story. Now, however, I feel like she is trying to guide them down the "right" paths, at least for the time period. She wanted to get Tomasin to marry Venn after suspecting Wildeve was going to leave her at the altar, due to the rising gossip regarding their failed first attempt to marry. She thought that was an excuse to for Wildeve to leave Tomasin, and she wanted to find a new suitor for her niece. When Tomasin scorned her and eloped with Wildeve, Mrs. Yeobright was really hurt and pushed her away.
Regarding Clym, Mrs. Yeobright only wanted to help him be successful. She saw how well he was doing with his first business, and didn't want that to go to waste. She discouraged him from becoming a teacher, a socially lower position, because she wanted to help his reputation. While I don't like the fact that she was discouraging his dream, keeping your social class was something pretty standard at the time, and Mrs. Yeobright wanted keep her son in good standing with the town, especially since he was being treated as a "hero," like Arden said. When she realized how much her actions had separated her from her family, however, she strove to reconcile with them, but she was only turned away.
Mrs. Yeobright was a loving mother, in my opinion, and while she made mistakes, I felt like she was trying to do what would help her children succeed in their society, and when she saw how her actions had hurt them, she tried to make things right. That's how I see her anyways.
Maggie Watson
Hi everyone,
DeleteAs I was reading I couldn't help but notice this as well. Despite how harsh it may have seemed, as many others pointed out, it was most likely just the custom of the time and not out of the ordinary. Though she may have seemed harsh she was probably just trying to better Clym and Thomasin. This can be seen when she worries about how Thomasin could be outcast from the family if it was found out their marriage had never occurred. Though nowadays her "help" could be seen as very harsh and cruel, it seems that she only wished better lives for her children.
-Liam Files
While reading the novel I couldn't help but feel bad for Thomasin. She had been left by Damon the first time they had tried to get married as an opportunity for him to pursue a relationship with another woman. Then as the second time rolled around he was simply marrying her as a way to make Eustacia jealous.Thomasin was a genuinely kind person who cared for Wildeve, but he just used her. She was naïve and continuously believed her lying husband about his whereabouts. She even had a child with Damon. Damon was so ready to not only leave Thomasin behind, but his own daughter as well if it had meant that he would get to start another life with his lover, Eustacia. Out of selfishness Damon left his family and he died. Not only leaving Thomasin a widow, but his child, Eustacia Clementine, without a father. While reading did anyone else feel pity for Thomasin or any other characters in the novel?
ReplyDeleteHello Sydney!
DeleteI, too, feel pity for Thomasin. She does nothing to deserve how Damon treats her. I also pity Clym. He believes that Eustacia is his one true love, when in reality she’s just using him in hopes of escaping the “dreaded” heath. Granted, he was warned about her, but I still feel bad for him. Clym is a good man, though a little sensitive and foolhardy at times. He marries Eustacia against his mother’s will, which ends up hurting (and pretty much ending) his relationship with her. Later on, when he is stricken with partial blindness, he takes up furze cutting in order to make a living. Eustacia is not supportive of her husband and is quite unhappy with her life. In a way, she takes it out on Clym by not answering the door when Mrs. Yeobright comes to visit. Not only is this extremely rude, especially because she did it to a family member, but it consequently led to Mrs. Yeobright’s death. Clym is overcome with sorrow at the loss of his mother. It just seemed like Eustacia was never there for him and was only interested in his ability to take her abroad.
Hi Sydney and Kelsey,
DeleteI also felt that Clym and Thomasin were pitiful throughout the book. Despite having unfaithful partners and loveless marriages, the two remained strong and pure of heart. I find it especially admirable that Clym and Thomasin never lost hope in their spouses even though it was evident that the love was one sided. The scene where Thomasin and Clym tried to prevent Eustacia and Damon from leaving was heartbreaking. It is hard for me to imagine how anyone can care so much about someone who does not value and appreciate them. If I were Thomasin or Clym, I would not have gone after them. As Sydney mentioned, Clym even left his daughter behind. This really shows how much he cares about his family. The fact that Thomasin and Clym were still capable of loving their partners despite everything they’ve done, makes the book much more tragic. Luckily, both were able to find true happiness in the end. It is comforting to know that the two were given the opportunity to have a fresh start.
Another character that I pity is Eustacia. Although she was the cause for Clym’s suffering, I still can’t bring myself to hate her. She married Clym in hopes of being able to escape to Paris, but instead found herself trapped in Egdon Heath. Every day, she was bored out of her mind with nothing to do. To make matters worse, her husband starts to lose his eyesight. Then, she unintentionally contributes to Mrs. Yeobright’s death. Eustacia may be slightly self-centered, but she is not an evil character. As I got to know Eustacia, I found myself sympathizing with her.
-Beryl Chen (Accidentally removed half of my name...)
DeleteHi Beryl! I agree with you that Eustacia is not an evil character and most of the time I could understand where she was coming from. Some of the time, though, I couldn’t help but be angry with her actions. Especially, like you mentioned, how she reacted to Clym losing his eyesight. I know that you probably sympathized with her because it’s hard for someone to see a loved one get hurt. But I thought that Eustacia had a bad response to it. She was feeling sorry for herself and was acting like she was the victim, when in reality, Clym was. She should’ve been there for Clym instead of holding his poor eyesight against him when it’s something that’s out of his control. I think I felt the most frustrated when she got mad at him for singing during his work. He had finally come to terms with his eyesight and losing the prospect of his dream job. He was finally happy again, but his joy just made Eustacia angry. If she truly loved him then she should have been happy that he was doing better. Instead, she’s insulted that he’s not miserable. It made me feel really bad for Clym.
Delete-Caitlin Breslin
Hi Caitlin and Beryl!
DeleteI too found myself pitying Eustacia throughout the story. Yet, even though she did make a number of mistakes in regards to her actions towards Clym, I do still believe that she did truly love him. Caitlin brought up a good point about how she should have been happier for him when he was able to come to terms with all that had occurred, but we cant forget that with him finding his own way he often left her alone. She was left alone during a time where she needed someone beside her, which fueled the anger towards his happiness at that moment. I also want to bring up the point that at the end of the book she broke down, not because of her dream life fading away, but because she thought she lost Clym. This was the first time in the story where we see that she truly loves him, but it still remained hidden in the story and it was at that moment that I really pitied her.
-Peighton Stirt
Hi Sydney and Kelsey!
DeleteI agree with both of your thoughts on Thomasin. I think that out of all the characters in the novel she is the most deserving of sympathy. She endures the most suffering out of all the characters, yet she remains trusting and loyal to all of those around her.
Her struggles begin early on when her original marriage to Wildeve falls through which causes Mrs. Yeobright to become upset with Thomasin because Mrs. Yeobright's main concern is her reputation, not the well being of her family. When Thomasin eventually marries Wildeve her life does not improve because it is a loveless marriage. That doesn't deter her however because she remains trusting and understanding of Wildeve even though he disappears often to meet with Eustacia. When Thomasin has the baby and it is named after Wildeve's lover it serves as a painful reminder to Thomasin that she isn't the one who is loved by Wildeve. To top all of that off she experienced a great deal of loss when Mrs. Yeobright and Wildeve died. Even though they didn't always care for Thomasin she cared deeply about them so those deaths clearly affected her.
I was really happy to see Thomasin get some sort of happy ending when she married Venn purely out of love. She deserved to be loved back by someone after having to persevere through incredible amounts of mistreatment and disregard throughout the novel.
Hey guys,
DeleteI definitely agree with what you all think regarding Clym and Thomasin-I couldn't help but feel bad for them too. They suffered through a lot in the book. However, I can't pity Eustacia. She only married Clym to use him to get way from Edgon Heath, and most of her actions have led to more issues. And, in my opinion, anyone willing to have an affair with someone else is acting pretty dang ungrateful to their spouse, who worked so hard to make them happy. Thomasin loved Wildeve, and wanted to believe that he wasn't running around with another woman, and Clym worked so hard to get through his disability to make a life for Eustacia. All she did in return, however, was complain and flirt with Wildeve. She may have been placed in rough circumstances, in a town she didn't feel any connection to, with less money and status than she's wanted in life, but boredom isn't an excuse to behave the way Eustacia did. At least she seems to feel regretful for the consequences of her actions, but I don't think her regret is enough for me to feel pity.
Hi Sydney,
DeleteI also pitied Thomasin throughout the book. She went against her aunt’s disapproval of
Wildeve, and then he embarrassed the family by not getting married to her the first time. Then, I continued to feel bad for her because Wildeve was not loyal to her. He was constantly lying about his whereabouts, and even when she knew about his affair, when she tried to confront him, he made her feel bad and she apologized for calling him out. I thought this was unfair for Thomasin to have to deal with.
I also pitied Clym because no one understood him. His mom wanted him to have a luxurious lifestyle, but it wasn’t what he wanted and didn’t make him happy. A lot of people thought it was strange he didn’t want this, and some judged him. Another reason I pitied him is because he wanted to make Eustacia happy, but she was having an affair with Wildeve. Clym wanted to give her everything she wanted, but she was selfish and wanted someone else who she couldn’t have. A third reason I pitied Clym was because he wanted to do good in the world and help others, but while studying to do just that, he injured his eyes, which made it impossible for him to continue his studies for a long time. I thought it was unfair for him also that he was trying to help others but suffered from a serious eye injury.
-Ryan Lentocha
Hi guys,
DeleteI also pitied Thomasin greatly. She is truly just an innocent, goodhearted women. This innocence, however, makes her blind to much that occurs in her life. She marries Damon despite all of the signs that it is a completely one-sided relationship. She has a genuine liking of Damon which keeps her from realizing that he is merely using her throughout the story. He is in need of anyway to make his true love, Eustacia jealous, and uses Thomasin as a mere pawn in his attempt to get with her. He has no regard for anyone else's feelings and does whatever he wants to reach his goals. With Thomasin's attempt to live such a passionate, true to herself life, I believe that almost anyone reading the novel would pity her as a character.
Hello all,
DeleteAs i did pity Thomasin in this book like all you, I agree with Jack's point about being blind to the truth about Damon. I feel that she loved him too much and saw right through his flaws and caused her downfall. It is her devotion to Damon that makes me pity her as she stays with him even though she has every reason to leave showing her loyalty and moral upstanding as a character.
Brennan Nick
I just finished reading the novel, and although I will admit some chapters were tedious to read through, I enjoyed the last section, or Book Sixth. In Books One through Five, the main characters face many limitations as to what they could do with their lives. For instance, Eustacia cannot go to Paris, so she marries Clym mainly to convince him to take her there. Clym wants to be a teacher, but has to become a furze-cutter when his eyesight is ruined by long hours of reading. Diggory wants to marry Thomasin, but she is married to another man. Damon wants to be with Eustacia, but he is married to Thomasin.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the deaths of Eustacia and Damon turn everyone's lives around. By dying, Eustacia and Damon have essentially freed themselves of what was holding them back: for Eustacia, it was Egdon Heath, and for Damon, it was his marriage. Because of this, everyone else becomes more free, too. Thomasin is now a widow and can marry Diggory, and instead of caring for Eustacia, Clym can now use his time to do some soul-searching and find his vocation as a preacher.
Instead of being dictated by society, the actions that Thomasin, Diggory, and Clym take in Book Sixth are dictated by love. Thomasin and Diggory do not marry for any monetary or societal gain they might receive, and even though Clym does ponder the idea of marrying Thomasin, he finds his true calling as an outdoor preacher for the town.
Did anyone else notice this contrast between Book Sixth and the rest of the novel? Or is there a different event that seemed to be more of a turning point for the characters?
Hi Madalyn,
DeleteI agree with you completely. There is definitely a contrast between book six and the rest of the novel. I saw the difference mainly in the love aspect as well. Readers spend the whole book following this tragedy of the individual characters. They hope for one thing and end up getting the other. Just as you mentioned, a good example of this is Eustacia's plan to get out of the heath. She goes out of her way to marry Clym, thinking that this is the solution, just to find out he has other plans to stay.
However, when we reach book six, the novel ends on somewhat of a happy note. The two protagonists (Clym and Thomasin) have been used by their other halves. Eustacia marries Clym to move to Paris and Damon uses Thomasin to make Eustacia jealous. By the end, these two are happy with where they are, Thomasin finding a man she truly loves and Clym finding an occupation he enjoys. In that sense I believe that the sixth book is more about love and less about the tragedy that seems to follow in the rest of the novel.
On the other hand, I think you can also consider Mrs. Yeobright's death to be a turning point for the characters. After all, Eustacia and Clym wouldn't have separated (at that moment) had it not been for him finding out the role she payed in his mother's death. You could say that Mrs. Yeobright's death led to Eustacia's plan to escape. Overall, I agree with the differentiation between the last book and the previous five.
-Monique Michaud
Hi Monique and Madalyn,
DeleteI agree with both of you on how book 6 contrasts with the rest of the novel, but I believe the death of Mrs. Yeobright was the true turning point within the story. This is because with her death came the conflicts of the characters coming to the surface. It was her death that led to Clym rethinking how he treated everyone and how everyone treated him, and it was her death the lead to Eustacia ultimately giving up her life. And while it was the death of both Eustacia and Damon that allowed both Clym and Thomasin to once again find happiness, it was the death of Mrs. Yeobright that caused the original spiral of events.
-Peighton Stirt
Hi everyone,
Delete(I already tried posting this comment, but I do not believe that it was published. I have rewritten it, sorry if there are two very similar posts!)
I think that Peighton's observation of the nature of the death of Mrs. Yeobright is very insightful. I would also like to add that this "turning point" is truly a point at which the tragedies previously detailed in the story are repeated.
Before the death of Mrs. Yeobright, Eustacia is attracted to Mr. Wildeve because her relationship with him is forbidden--he is an engaged man. Soon, Eustacia becomes infatuated with Clym and the possiblilty that he will take her to Paris. After Mrs. Yeobright's death, Eustacia learns that due to a large windfall, she would have been able to travel as she had dreamed with Mr. Wildeve. Once the infatuation wears off of each relationship, Eustacia becomes depressed, showing the tragic and repetitive nature of these events.
Before her death, Clym and Eustacia fail to let Mrs. Yeobright into their house. This directly leads to her being bitten by an adder and passing away. After the death of Mrs. Yeobright, Clym and Captain Vye fail to have a letter detailing Clym's forgiveness to Eustacia. This leads to the young girl's suicide. In this way Clym is cursed twice by being unable to save the women close to him.
Hardy's use of Mrs. Yeobright's death as a turning point to indicate the repetition of mistakes and the following sadness is a clever addition which is an important tool in the characterization of this story as cyclical and tragic.
(I know that the narrator tells us that "the receipt of Clym's letter would not have stopped her" from committing suicide (Hardy 111). I do not believe that this is true, as Eustacia was only moved to thinking of suicide once she departs her home and her husband. For this reason, I believe that the delivery of Clym's letter would have provided her the affection necessary for her to avoid taking her own life. Did anyone have any thoughts regarding whether or not Eustacia's reception of the letter would have actually prevented her suicide?)
-Meghan Myles
Hi everyone,
DeleteIn regards to Meghan's last question, I agree with her statement in saying Eustacia might have been stopped by Clym's letter. By a careful re-read of the tragic death of Eustacia, I found this line to be extremely interesting. "Venn vanished under the stream, and came up with an armful of wet drapery enclosing a woman's cold form, which was all that remained of the desperate and unfortunate Eustacia" (Hardy 363). The word desperate was what really made me think. Eustacia really felt as though she had no other alternatives than to get Wildeve to take her to Paris, as she had lost Clym's love and affection. She was truly desperate for a way out of the confining heath, and Wildeve was the only person who could give that to her. However, we have seen multiple times that Eustacia is easily swayed and changes her feelings multiple times. For instance, in the beginning of the novel she seemed infatuated by Wildeve himself, but as soon as Clym showed an interest in her, she immediately changed her mind and hurried to marry him. For this reason, I think the reception of Clym's letter could have easily changed her mind. We have seen that Eustacia likes to be loved, and I believe that if Eustacia saw the affection and forgiveness coming from Clym, this tragedy could have been stopped.
-Allyse Ernest
DeleteMeghan and Allyse,
DeleteI would have to agree with the narrator in that I don't believe Eustacia would have changed her mind had she read Clym's letter. Eustacia knew she did not belong in the Heath. From the very beginning Eustacia wanted a ticket to Paris, and much of her affection for Clym stemmed from him potentially being able to give this to her. Her multiple failed attempts to escape from the Heath, in my opinion, made her suicide inevitable. She was trapped in a dull, uninteresting life and she knew that she would never be able to improve her situation whether she was with Clym or not. In the end, it seemed to Eustacia that jumping into the weir was a better option than living the rest of her life unfulfilled.
-Eva Riggott
DeleteHey Madalyn,
DeleteI didn't notice how present the contrast was between Book Six and the the rest of the novel until I came across your analysis of the character's motivations. I do have one disagreement however; I do not believe Damon's death liberated him from his marriage, but also freed him from his "obsession" so to speak with Eustacia. Throughout the book, he always seemed to believe she would always be around to admire him, even if he did not fully reciprocate that to her. It's only when she marries that he becomes jealous and has the potential to lose her permanently. Once Eustacia chooses to run away does the audience see how willing Damon is to throw his life away for her, which, ironically, is exactly what plays out. He is killed by is own discontentment with his life, how he relied so much on playing games and never seemed to live for himself. At least, that was my interpretation of Damon's character.
I realized that throughout the novel, we never learn Mrs. Yeobright's first name. Even though she plays a huge role in the novel, she is nameless, which gives a mysterious aspect to her character. This is significant because it shows who she is as a person, but it also shows what she lacks. We know that she is the mother of Clym and the aunt of Thomasin, but what else? She does tend to cap her emotions sometimes, even though she will express them every now and then, but we never really know what exactly she is thinking. We don't fully get to know the kind of person she is deep down, but we see some glimpses of her character throughout the novel. These glimpses are the ones that really define her as "Mrs. Yeobright." What impact do you think Mrs. Yeobright's nameless first name gives to the novel?
ReplyDeleteMore so to add on to your point, it almost seems that Mrs. Yeobright has no first name to simply to state her as the widow of Mr. Yeobright, and to link her as a mother and aunt. Therefore, she is viewed as a more authoritative figure, which she is to Clym and Thomasin. Keeping her without a first name, Hardy defines Mrs. Yeobright by her roles as a mother, aunt, wife, and important figure in the Egdon community. Appearance and reputation seem to be of high value to her. Two prime examples of this occur when Clym wants to become a teacher to poor heath children, and then when he becomes a furze cutter just to raise some income. She does not approve of either of these actions. In response to your question, I am not yet completely sure of what impact her not having a first name has on the novel, which may be due to the fact that I have not finished the novel yet.
Delete-Stephen Sutton
DeleteStephen,
DeleteI completely agree with your explanation of why Hardy excluded Mrs. Yeobright's first name. Thomas Hardy wanted to emphasize her role as an aunt, wife, and mother. I would like to add the fact that every single decision she ever makes during the course of the novel is in direct relation to Clym or Thomasin. Even though her decisions don't always go over well, every word she utters and every action she carries out is intended to be in her niece's and son's best interests. She doesn't need a first name because she never does anything for individual reasons. Even though she wanted to stay mad at Clym for his choice of lifestyle, Mrs. Yeobright still eventually made the choice to come visit him. This was despite her knowing that that would require her to see Eustacia again after their bitter argument. She only gets angry with her family because she wants what is best for them. She only argues with others when her son's and niece's futures are at stake. She does everything with her family in mind, making the addition of a first name somewhat detrimental to the character Hardy is bringing to life.
Gavin Rublewski
Izzy and Stephen,
DeleteI agree with your interpretation of Mrs.Yeobright's character. To add on to that, I think her not having a name really draws attention to the culture and time of the book.
In this book, women were mostly called "miss" or "mrs" by people who (mostly) weren't relatives. Also, a woman, while respected, was not quite equal to a man. Thomasin was viewed as naive and weak in her husband's eyes. And, if the marriage to Wildeve didn't end up being complete, her name was slighted, not his. So to bring it back to each of your points, I think the fact that Mrs.Yeobright was not given a name, was to show that even though her husband was dead, she carried on his name and reputation. How she was viewed was based on her credibility to her last name, which, as you guys pointed out, she valued keeping a good reputation. To wrap it up, I think her not having a first name emphasized the culture of a woman and her reputation to her last name, making her first name irrelevant.
-Olivia Cayward
Hi Isabelle,
DeleteThis is such an interesting point! I found Mrs. Yeobright to be a bit of a “shady” character; I think the fact that she remains first-nameless gives her an almost eerie vibe. She seems to be quite opinionated in the advice that she often provides but somehow, despite her expression of disapproval and distaste every now and again, we don’t get a complete and total grasp on her. I believe this placement of such a mysterious and unknowable character is Hardy’s way of subtly preventing the reader from feeling too comfortable with the story; I think he wanted readers to feel slightly disconnected in such a way that they felt a bit on the edge of their seat throughout the novel and he did this by incorporating a character that we can't quite fully understand.
I also strongly agree with Olivia's point that it effectively adds to the book's setting and cultural norms by allowing Mrs. Yeobright's character to carry on the legacy of her husband in a way.
-Alix Hietala
Hi Olivia!
DeleteI also thought that the fact that she remained "nameless" per say throughout the novel added to the emphasis on the culture of this time frame. Throughout the story her actions were mostly dictated by the societal norms of the time and what would make her and her relatives "respectable" in everyone's eyes. She disregarded what her relatives truly wanted on the hopes of them being able to make the family proud. Throughout the novel we are also given the fact that her husband was a man that everyone in the town greatly respected, and with this we can see that this influenced most of her decisions as she wanted to keep that legacy alive. As Alix had mentioned above, she could also be seen as a "shady" character because she thinks mostly of herself and her family name when giving advice to the ones she loves, and tends to overstep multiple times. Yet, she still does this with good intentions as she simply wants them to be respected by the ones who lived around them. I also think, like Stephen had mentioned, that her name added an authoritative tone as we couldnt think of her as her own person she was simply the mother or the aunt. We never knew anything more then that about her own personal life, and for me this added a lot more to her character as it let us try and figure out what happened in her past that made her into the person that she was in the last few years of her life.
-Peighton Stirt
Hi all,
DeleteI thought it was also very interesting how we do not know Mrs. Yeobright's first name. As some of you said, it truly emphasizes the point that she is really only known for her character as a mother, aunt, and wife. When she gives advice, it seems as though she wants people to live vicariously though her. As Stephen mentioned, the name gives her an authoritative feel. She was only living her personal life, which could possibly make her come off as selfish or something along those lines. It is sort of spooky that we do not know her first name and we not find out at all. like some of you said, I think it is just a characterization trait.
Hi all,
DeleteStephen had a great point as keeping Mrs. Yeobright without a first name to identify her character as a mother and aunt first. I think this was done to show how her life is dedicated to the family nothing else is of concern to her. Also, she puts the family members in front of her own needs. Her family name is more important to her than her own name.
Brennan Nick
Hello all, I'm about halfway through this novel right now, and I picked up on something I thought was interesting about Eustacia's character. When the audience is first introduced to her, her past is summarized and we learn she lost both of her parents, and her grandfather, who was permanently injured in a shipwreck. In a few pages later on, Thomas Hardy explores Eustacia's views on love, and how she has, without any experience, decided that love was but "a doleful joy". Doleful means expressing sorrow, and I connected that she has had experience in loving other individuals: her parents. Hardy seems to gloss it over in exposition, but I believe the two are connected, and how she lost two people who love her naturally in such a brief span of time, it had to have a negative effect on her. I don't know if it comes up later on in the story, but thought it was an interesting connection.
ReplyDeleteHi, Nick! Your comment really made me think about how Eustacia’s past has affected her relationships with other people. She seems to make objective decisions about subjective issues like love. She chooses to marry Clym because she believes she will find a life in Paris through him; she forces rather than accepts love from him. I think that by desensitizing herself to relationships, Eustacia is trying to distance herself from heartbreak and sorrow. Since she has lost so many of her family members, she is protecting herself from loss by surrounding herself with people she would not be devastated to lose. However, we later learn that her choice to detach herself from the people she genuinely loves, like Wildeve, causes her sorrow and discontent. In fact, it turns out that Wildeve has amassed a huge fortune that would have enabled him to take Eustacia to Paris. I think Hardy is trying to say that material wealth is only fulfilling when it comes after genuine love in a relationship. Thanks for pointing out Eustacia’s last- it was something I definitely wouldn’t have noticed otherwise!
Delete-Kenna Hurtuk
Hi Nick and Kenna,
DeleteI think that these comments are very useful in determining Eustacia's reasons for behaving as she does. Kenna said that Eustacia's past affects her present relationships. I think that this is a very valid interpretation. To Eustacia, love is ephemeral--she lost her parents when she was very young, so she has been conditioned to believe that love departs as quickly as is manifests itself. Throughout the later portion of the novel, she voices her worries about falling out of love with Clym often. I believe that she feels this way because she was forced to end her love for her parents in order to cope with their death. Similarly, although she never fully falls out of love with Clym, she quickly loses her infatuation for Mr. Wildeve when Clym arrives in the story. I think that Eustacia is only able to hold short and fleeting relationships because she never has had a long, loving relationship with her parents. In addition, she treats her grandfather as someone below her rather than someone with whom to build a loving relationship, so she has never experienced love for any long, stable period. For this reason, she is ill-prepared to hold long romantic relationships.
-Meghan Myles
Hi Nick and Kenna and Meghan!
DeleteI agree with all of your statements, and I agree with Nick's connection in that it is strong and easy to see throughout the story. Even though Hardy does not elaborate more, or as you said he simply "glosses over this", I believe her loss of a natural love at such a young age deeply affected her later in life. She has been living with her grandfather for as long as she can remember, and as we see he does not care much for her whereabouts or location at any given time, and even returns home when she goes missing, and eventually drowns, simply because he is tired. He appears an unfeeling caretaker, and one ill equipped to teach her the intimate workings of a loving relationship. This affects her adult life as she does not know how to love someone, which we see in her relations with Damon, Clym, and even Charlie. She is loved by many, and instead of choosing one to love back, as a typical relationship functioned in this time period, she returns the love and admiration of all equally, which skews all her relationships. It also causes her infidelity to Clym, as she holds many secret lovers trysts with Damon. It is even during one of these meetings that she develops her plan to leave, which leads to her drowning. To conclude, her loss of parents and their love at such a young age did indeed have a negative effect on her later in life, as she was incapable of being singular in her love, and never satisfied with one's attention, and this most likely contributed greatly to her death.
Casey Bowden
Hi again Nick, Kenna, and Casey!
DeleteCasey brought up the viewpoint that Captain Vye comes off as a cold and uncaring guardian who is not well-suited to his role in Eustacia's life. I had not seen him in this light before. To me, the captain seems like a lonely man who truly loves his granddaughter. This is evident to me throughout the novel: he checks on her (albeit somewhat rudely, although she has used up most of his thorn roots) at her original campfire, he later allows her to rest and plans to give her the letter from Clym the following morning, and he leaves to find her as soon as he believes that she is in danger. When Eustacia ignores her grandfather's distress at having his best wood burned, it is indicated by the narrator that her retort is made "in a way which told at once that she was absolute queen here" (Hardy 22). For these reasons, I interpret the story to show Eustacia being cold and not allowing her grandfather to forge any sort of emotional connection with her.
I think that it is interesting that you see Captain Vye as the party at fault for this lack of familial connection. I see now how his uninvolved nature contributes to this interpretation. I think that part of what makes this novel great is that the characters' motivations are sometimes up to the inference of the reader. I find it interesting that we shared completely different understandings of Captain Vye.
Hello everyone!
DeleteI'm glad to come back and see my comment actually inspired some deeper thinking and further dissection of this book. Since finishing the book, I was able to see how Eustacia's lack of unconditional love hurt her character as she married Yeobright and later when she runs away, as you all have touched on. I do agree more with Meghan's interpretation of Eustacia's grandfather than Casey's though; I always saw him as a concerned and loving old man. I felt like we were really shown that after he found out why his guns were moved, and saw him as too tired and fragile to continue to search for her because he's old, not because he just wanted to call it a night.
Hello everyone,
DeleteI am very intrigued by all the different viewpoints that have been brought up regarding Eustacia's past and her relationship with her grandfather. Like Meghan, I also find it very interesting how Hardy creates such complex characters allowing for so many different opinions. I agree with Meghan in that I believe Eustacia is the one to blame for the poor relationship with her grandfather. Although his character is reclusive and silent, he tries his best to take care of her and make sure she's safe. She, however, often ignores him and can be somewhat disrespectful. I do not fully blame her for this behavior though. She went through the traumatic experience of losing both her parents. The two people that she truly relied on for their love and affection disappeared from her life. She probably felt like if she got close to someone else like her grandfather, there was a chance that they, too, could disappear and she would go through the same trauma again.
Class,
DeleteI personally feel sympathy for Eustacia. The trauma that she endured in losing both of her parents at a young age is one that no child should ever have to live through. This explains her viewpoint on love being doleful, and when you "love" in the manner that Eustacia did, it is not hard to understand why she feels that way. Throughout the novel, Eustacia didn't love because it was how she felt, she loved because it could be beneficial for her. For example, her marriage to Clym was for a new opportunity in a land she envied. I do believe that her actions are a product of her previous experience with tragedy .
-Ryan Cyr
Hello all. While reading, I am finding myself perplexed by Thomas Hardy's naming of Johnny Nonsuch. At first, I thought his last name implied that he is basically a nobody on Egdon Heath, as he is a young boy without much wealth, acting as a servant at times to characters such as Eustacia (with her bonfire) and Mrs. Yeobright (during her return home after Eustacia refused to answer her knocking at Clym's cottage). However, after looking up the definition of the word "nonesuch," I have discovered it to mean "a person or thing without an equal." Now, I am not finished with the novel and so lack knowledge of future events, but it doesn't appear that he is a special or noteworthy in any way, outside of serving a secondary role in the plot line. Does anyone believe that his unique name is meant to be symbolic of something?
ReplyDeleteGavin Rublewski
Hi Gavin,
DeleteI believe that in this story, Johnny Nonsuch is unparalleled in his early knowledge of the secret goings-on of Edgon Heath. As you said, he was at Eustacia's bonfire, and had been ordered to listen for a frog jumping into the lake. Later, he hears the last words of Mrs. Yeobright. In both of these situations he is too young to understand the significance of what is going on around him. Instead, he tells adults what he has seen, and the adults understand the full severity of his knowledge. In this way, Johnny has no equal in that he is the one character who, arguably, brings the most havoc to the lives of those inhabiting the heath. However, I also believe that he is also unparalleled in his innocence, and that his lack of knowledge is used as a foil against the adults of the heath who frequently engage in gossip.
On an unrelated note, I also believed that Johnny's actions in his scene with Mrs. Yeobright are eerily joyful. While Mrs. Yeobright is struggling for her life and is showing obvious signs of extreme stress, the boy plays and chats merrily. He can, of course, not be blamed for his ignorance, as he is very young. However, the juxtaposition of the cheerful child and the dying woman in this scene creates an atmosphere that is distinctly eerie. This may connect back to the theory that Johnny's last name is a reference to his unparalleled innocence.
-Meghan Myles
Another possible meaning fro his name is that he has no equal in hi happiness in the story. He is too young to understand the many issues that other people have going on i their lives. Problems with wives or what job you want to have as an adult seem a long way down the road for him. While he knows about the problems his lack of world experience and youth doesn't allow him to understand and appreciate how severe the problems are for other characters. By not understanding these problems he is able to have unparalleled happiness in the story. For him ignorance is bliss. He can see the problems but he cannot understand them so they don't phase him as much as they do for the other characters.
DeleteMichael Angers
Hi everyone,
DeleteBuilding upon what Meghan said, Johnny Nonsuch seems to be one of the main gossip mongers of the book. He is a sort of omniscient character that notices all of the going-ons of the town around him. Throughout, I couldn't help but compare him to the character of Nick in "The Great Gatsby" or, more relevantly, Hedda in "Hedda Gabler". All three characters share the role of connecting the stories of each love affair together and giving the reader a larger perspective than the one that would be given by one of those involved in the affair. Though there are some key differences between the charcters ( one big one being that Hedda was involved in her own affair as well) they all share similar roles in each book respectively.
-Liam Files
Hey guys,
DeleteI believe Johnny's last name is more of a combination of the two most common interpretations. He is "nonsuch" in terms of the idea that he is "nobody" to anyone else-just an errand boy or a young kid that doesn't know what is happening between all of these different individuals, but he is also "nonsuch" because he is so different from the adults. He has something they lack-innocence. He is unparalleled because while he doesn't understand the adult's problems, he is willing to listen to them (while playing with himelf) and give them a much needed vent. Johnny is also Hardy's apparent favorite method of transmitting information to other characters, because he is used a lot by people in the story to relay messages, making him unlike the others because of the amount of information he has. Like you have all said, Johnny has the most amount of gossip, and he freely shares this with others. He manages to be nobody, as well as the most informative character, at the same time.
Maggie
As I was reading, I observed that Egdon Heath seems to play an increasingly important role. It is described in such vivid detail, especially in chapter one, and each character has certain feelings toward it. The heath’s perpetual presence and ability to interact with the characters allows it to be a functional character itself. One aspect that I found quite interesting was the fact that each time Eustacia tries escape Egdon Heath, she fails. It’s almost as if the heath is trying to contain her, exercising its power over her. In her first attempt, she marries Clym in hopes that he will eventually take her to Paris. Unfortunately, when he is stricken with partial blindness, her hope is crushed. Toward the end of the novel she tries again to escape, this time with Damon. I don’t believe it to be coincidental that she ends up drowning (along with Damon) in the heath’s waters.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, when re-reading chapter one, two things stuck out to me regarding the heath. The first was the title of the chapter itself: “A Face on which Time makes but little Impression”. For me, this emphasized the permanence of Egdon Heath. It remains stable while the other characters change. The second was the line: “It had a lonely face, suggesting tragical possibilities” (11). I couldn’t help but think that this foreshadows all the excitement that eventually occurs. The “tragical possibilities” might be referring to Clym going blind, or the deaths of Mrs. Yeobright, Eustacia, and Damon. Does anyone have any other thoughts on the role of Egdon Heath or how the characters interact with it?
I'm about halfway through, and I have definitely noticed Egdon Heath's differing views and importance to specific characters. In the beginning, it was described as a sort of mystic, romanticized civilization where man could not find something more serene. As I continued reading, I wasn't quite sure why it was described in this way, as it just seems like a regular village of some sort. However, Eustacia's views on it seem to completely conflict the general perception of it.
DeleteEustacia to me seems rebellious and eager to grow up and leave the heath. When talking to Clym about their potential marriage under the moonlight, Eustacia repeatedly interrupts Clym about their relationship and asks him about places such as the Louvre and Versailles. In this instance, It's almost like Eustacia doesn't care about him, but rather his connection to Paris. Instead of marrying a person because of love, she seems like she will marry him simply because of an opportunity to leave the heath.
Clym, on the other hand, seems like the complete opposite of Eustacia regarding the heath. In the first chapter, Clym is continuously brought up by the people of Egdon Heath of his return for the holiday. He is described like a person of importance with a promising future and a good job. However, as I continued reading Clym doesn't seem like this person at all. Clym didn't seem to enjoy Paris, this beautiful city with lots of opportunity, and instead prefers living in the heath. He tells his mother he'd rather be a schoolteacher and give up his job, and she scolds him for this decision because it is far less glamorous. This decision completely goes against the general perception of him, and somehow the heath is still alluring to him. Despite everything going for Clym, he somehow seems more attracted to Egdon Heath than the city of Paris.
-James Heaney
DeleteHi Kelsey and James,
DeleteI agree that the heath is a very important aspect of the novel, and I found Eustacia and Clym's differing feelings about it very interesting. In a way, their thoughts about the heath show exactly how different their motivations are.
On one hand, Eustacia wants to leave the heath because it is all she has known. In her mind, she envisions a romanticized version of Paris being the answer to all of her problems. She wants nothing more than to leave Egdon Heath and move to Paris where she can flourish. However, to the reader who is observing her from afar, it may seem like she will merely find a way to be dissatisfied with Paris once she gets there. After all, the citizens of Egdon Heath all seem to love their hometown except for Eustacia, so there is little reason to believe that she will find Paris perfect once she arrives and lives there for a few years.
Clym, on the other hand, has lived in Paris and was not as happy there as he was in the heath, so he returns to his original hometown. He gave up the success he had in Paris to follow his real dreams of becoming a schoolteacher instead of continuing to follow the dreams his mother had for him to be wealthy.
It seems that Clym knows what he wants while Eustacia only knows what she does not want.
Although Eustacia's most specific goal, or hope, is to leave the heath, she also tells Damon, "'I married him because I loved him, but I won't say that I didn't love him partly because I thought I saw a promise of that life in him'" (282). In this statement, "that life" is referring to "'music, poetry, passion, war, and all the beating and pulsing that is going on in the great arteries of the world'" (281).
The first statement is interesting for two reasons. The first is Eustacia's use of the past tense of "love." She "loved" Clym, but she does not love him. The second is that the reason for this former feeling of love was not because of who he is as a person but what he could offer her, which was a new life. Eustacia is bored with the monotony of the heath, and Paris is her best hope for new opportunities and adventures.
Is Paris the only place that could offer her what she wants? Would moving to Paris really have changed Eustacia as a person? I personally believe that the answer to both of these questions is "no," but there is no real way to know exactly what would have happened if Eustacia and Clym did move to Paris after their marriage. It seems to me that they both hope for very different lives for themselves, and they would have never been compatible no matter where they went, and a major reason for this is their thoughts about the heath and what it could or could not offer them.
Kelsey,
DeleteI noticed the connection between Egdon Heath and the characters, too. I also wanted to add that, like Hedda Gabler, the setting was very important to the plot. Also, similar to Hedda Gabler, the whole book took place in that one setting. The heath was the only place we saw the characters.They talked about Paris and Budmouth, but we were never brought there in the story. I think the setting played an important role in the foreshadowing of events and giving insight to the characters. At the end of the book, when it's stormy and awful weather, it foreshadowed the tragic deaths of Wildeve and Eustacia.
The characters views on the heath also gave us a better understanding of the character's emotions and personalities. Eustacia saw nothing but evil and boredom in the heath, which demonstrated her hunger for more in life. We saw how she craved love like she craved to leave the emptiness of the heath. She always wanted to be somewhere else, like Paris. She saw Paris as an adventure and a beautiful city, and convinced herself she could only be happy there. Paris was the opposite of Egdon Heath in her mind and symboled her happiness while the heath was her misery.
For Thomasin, though, her view on Egdon was very different. She didn't mind the heath, and compared to the other main characters, ended up having good fortune and a very different fate. At the end, she ended up marrying a much better man and had a good life. Her peace with the heath demonstrated her peace with others. She was a very soft spoken person and tried to be as easygoing as possible. She avoided conflict with Wildeve and Mrs.Yeobright best she could, and even in arguments, she did her best to make others happy. Her content with the setting represented her character well, and foreshadowed her fate at the end.
-Olivia Cayward
Hello all,
DeleteI, too, knew from the very beginning of the story that the heath would play an essential role in the development of the plot, and I agree with what many of you had to say about its role in the development of the characters, especially Eustacia and Clym. It is clear that the heath is playing a physical role in keeping them apart, and their disagreement over where to live is also hurting their relationship.
To tie together what Kelsey said about time having little influence on the heath and what Olivia noted about weather being an important element in the story, I noticed, while reading, that a series of many seasons passes during the story, and those seasons correlate with the plot. The story opens as the heath enters winter. Clym arrives as the heath emerges from winter and the characters grow more lively as spring arrives. We see the rapid development of Eustacia and Clym's relationship as spring shifts to summer, and then the decline as the summer fades away. By the time Eustacia and Damon drown, the story has filled one year and one day; the heath is once again entering the winter months. The remaining characters mourn, but they learn to move on as the spring again warms the heath. Thomasin and Venn decide to marry by the summer, and life seems to have resumed its usual patterns.
Hardy clearly meant to draw a subtle parallel between the characters and the setting in order to better tie them together, and he also used the heath as its own being. Its cyclical nature made it seem, as Kelsey mentioned, that time was of little significance. One line, in particular, stood out to me when I glanced over the first few pages again: “The sea changed, the fields changes, the rivers, the villages, and the people changed, yet Egdon remained” (4). This emphasizes the age of the heath relative to the characters; it has seen thousands of human lives pass in its time as it remains unchanging. So while its presence in the lives of its inhabitants is prominent, their presence within the heath itself it fleeting and insignificant.
-Kalina Bonofiglio
Hi all,
DeleteI think that an important factor contributing to Eustacia's hatred for Edgon Heath is the situation that forced her to move there. As a young child, she lived in Budmouth, which is described as a "fashionable seaside resort" (Hardy 25). I think that this decidedly positive description of her childhood home is significant: Eustacia truly enjoyed living in Budmouth. However, she was forced to leave for the heath upon the passing of her parents. I believe that Eustacia likely detests the heath not because it is below her or because it is boring, but because it reminds her of the fact that her parents are dead.
Hey guys,
DeleteGoing off of what Olivia and Kalina said, near the end of the book, Hardy also used the temperature and weather to show the importance of the plot. In Book 5 and 6, he described the heat of one day for paragraphs at a time, right before Mrs. Yeobright dies. This reminded me of the Great Gatsby, where the hottest day of the year correlates to the day Myrtle died. The rainstorm in Book 6 is a similar scenario-Eustacia and Wildeve die in the midst of a huge storm, also heavily described. Such intense shifts in weather are seemingly used by Hardy to let the readers know that something big is about to happen, and it won't be an "average" day for the characters.
Maggie
Madalyn,
ReplyDeleteI personally agree that moving to Paris would not have affected the outcome of the marriage of Clym and Eustacia. It appears that their marriage was doomed from the start, partly due to their views of the heath, but also because of Eustacia's desires in a relationship. It is clear that she is a woman who always wants more. She sees Damon Wildeve as a person just a little better off and little more extravagant than the other villagers. However, her love for him momentarily dies when she sees someone better: a young, handsome gentleman who has been living a grand life in Paris. She loves him mostly for his status and exotic allure as opposed to him as a person. The reader soon discovers that once Clym's career and health go south, Eustacia's love for him dwindles from a large flame to a small ember. Then, when Wildeve inherits a fortune from a relative, Eustacia all of a sudden rekindles her romance with him in hope for a better life. Eustacia fears the future of her marriage because she has had a history of love evaporating quickly in relationships. This is not because of the nature of love, but more so that Eustacia does not truly know what love is. It is not about excitement, status, adventure, or anything of the sort, which is why she ultimately fails in her quest for happiness.
Gavin Rublewski
Hi Madalyn! When I was reading your response about Eustacia’s intense yearning to go to Paris, I couldn’t help but connect it to how she always seems to be running away from her problems. She blames the heath for making her miserable, but in reality she is miserable because she wants to be. I feel like, in a way, she wants to feel sorry for herself and think that her problems are “unsolvable”, but we never really see her try to become happier unless it’s by means of “escaping”. She was too afraid to tell Clym about not letting his mother in and, when he finds out, she runs away from him. It makes her seem young and naive - too scared to face her problems. Even after she runs away that first time, she is unable to deal with the issue and tries to run away again. If she had just waited and hung in there a little longer, she would have received Clym’s letter. I think that these decisions deeply characterize Eustacia. She never learned how to solve her own problems. The only way she knew how to was by using people and running away.
Delete-Caitlin Breslin
Hi Gavin and Caitlin!
DeleteI too noticed your observations of Eustacia, and her misconceptions about love. She views it as a status symbol composed of material things such as money and or where one lives. I also noticed that Clym had a directly opposite view of this, as he saw love as being with the person he treasures most, that being Eustacia. Even when his objective of becoming a teacher or even returning to his old profession and life in Paris was compromised, he still did everything he could to ensure he would still be able to live with Eustacia, his true love. In addition, Thomasin shares this view, as we can see by how deeply Damon's neglect affects her. This is interesting because Clym mentions he used to view Thomasin as a love interest, even if it was only when they were children. Furthermore, Damon seems to combine the two views of love, as he is a materialistic man, shown in his business and his greedy attachment to his inherited fortune, but also values personal wealth, as he views simply being with Eustacia, even if only to look at her, as satisfying to him. I think each character's view of love throughout the story greatly contributed to their development as a person and to the path of the plot.
Casey Bowden
While reading, I noticed a very apparent connection between Clym and Thomasin. The reader is introduced to Thomasin when she is disappointed that she didn't end up marrying Damon for the first time. Clym's first appearance is when he comes home to seek a better future from his unhappy life in Paris. In both of these incidents, the characters are unhappy with the present and end up trying to move towards a better outcome for the future. The fact that their first appearances are very unfortunate foreshadows the obstacles that they will face throughout the novel.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Yeobright makes matters worse with her disapproval of Damon and Eustacia. She makes it distinct to both Thomasin and Clym that she opposes their decisions, even though neither of them listen to her commentary. Despite Mrs. Yeobright's disagreements with the two, Clym and Thomasin still care about her. Both characters have had their ups and downs with Mrs. Yeobright, but they know she is a part of their life, so they try and stay by her side, even with their spouses trying to hold them back.
The unfortunate connection is that Thomasin and Clym are being used by Damon and Eustacia. Eustacia marries Clym to seek a better life in Paris, even though that is far from what Clym really desires. Damon uses Thomasin to make Eustacia jealous, and he does this mainly for revenge from Eustacia's rejection towards him. Despite how poorly their spouses treat them, they keep going on and live with the weight of the fake love that is put on their shoulders. They feel pressured into love, when really they both aren't ready for marriage. They are both very admirable, in the sense that so many bad occurrences have happened to them, but they don't let that bring them down completely and continue to move on through life.
What other connections do you find between Thomasin and Clym?
Hi Izzy,
DeleteI think your observation about how Clym and Thomasin try to make better outcomes with their situations is important to each of their characters, and separates them from Damon and Eustacia. Clym and Thomasin don't try to escape their lives, they are making do with what happens even if it doesn't go how they wanted it to. Damon and Eustacia caused their own misfortunes throughout their lives, and are constantly trying to escape the mess they've made. This shows their unhappiness with their lives, and explains why their fate was what it was. While Clym and Thomasin, though devastated by the tragedies, end up in better situations at the end. Thomasin gets married to Venn and has a lot of money, while Clym finally finds his calling as a preacher.
-Olivia Cayward
Hi Izzy and Olivia!
DeleteI too noticed the inherent attribute of both Clym and Thomasin to be content with what they have, and Damon and Eustasia to both greedily desire more. I also found that, because of their lack of ambition and laziness in initiating change, they are often the "victim" or sufferer of the actions and consequences of those who do go out and attempt to instigate change. In addition, I noticed a connection between Damon and Eustacia, in that, when they do get their desired outcome, as Damon inherits money, satisfying his greed, and Eustacia is finally married to Clym and his coming success back in Paris, they then stop instead of attempting to embetter themselves further. Damon simply invests the money, and Eustacia does nothing while Clym ruins his eyes and takes a job cutting furze. It seemed to me that even though the two desired success and to improve themselves and their conditions, once they were improved a small amount they did not want for more. It could be that they saw how they had negatively affected others, such as the "victims" Clym and Thomasin, as Clym goes nearly blind in his devotion to his hard work, which he undertakes to attempt to satisfy Eustacia's momentary need for embetterment, and Thomasin is miserable and neglected by the self-centered Damon, as he too works in self embetterment. These connections and their ensuing character attributes made the interactions between Clym and Eustacia and Damon and Thomasin very interesting throughout the book!
Casey Bowden
Hi Izzy, Olivia and Casey,
DeleteYou all brought up great points regarding the relationship of Clym and Thomasin. I agree with what Izzy said about Mrs. Yeobright and her disapproval of Eustacia and Damon. This is one of the main conflicts of the novel and a driving force behind Clym and Thomasin's decisions. After the failure of Thomasin and Damon's marriage attempt, Thomasin stays with her aunt and struggles to stand up for herself. Her aunt's overpowering disappointment with the situation causes her to stay home and out of the public eye. Thomasin feels that the only way to resolve the problem is to finish what she started and marry Damon, whether that be what is best for her. In agreement with Casey, she is characterized as the "victim" because of her decision to continue with Damon. She submits to her aunt's wishes. Clym, however, decides to dismiss his mother's order to forget about Eustacia. His decision led to harsh arguments and excommunication. This put a lot of pressure on his relationship with Eustacia. Throughout the book, Clym expresses his wishes of reconciliation with his mother, but ultimately decides that his wife is to be put first. Unfortunately, Eustacia is not worried about Clym as much as he is with her. Her thoughts still belong to Damon. Mrs. Yeobright's death brought even more destruction than her life. Because of the disconnect she had with Clym, he felt responsible, while Eustacia sat aside and said nothing. Mrs Yeobright was one of the most influential characters in the novel. Her relationships with Thomasin and Clym drove the plot and their character development in the novel.
-Jordan Bonadies
Hi everyone,
DeleteI also picked up on the connection that Thomasin and Clym seem to share. Eustacia and Damon suffer from greed and wish for a life of luxury. I found it interesting how Eustacia married Clym simply because it was convenient for her desire to escape to Paris, when this forces her to leave behind her true love, Damon. This causes Damon to marry Thomasin. For Damon, it's to make Eustacia jealous, and for Thomasin it's more of a last resort. I really like the term "victim", as Casey said, because Thomasin really seems to be doing what other people around her want her to do, and Clym, although he strays away from his mother's demands, is maniupulated in a way by Eustacia. She wants money and couldn't care less about the physical toll Clym has to go through to get it. Like Jordan pointed out, she didn't even show that much compassion for her husband when Mrs. Yeobright died, which really hints at how unhappy a life of greed (as opposed to one of love) is making her. By the end, Damon and Eustacia run off, leaving their spouses behind. It really shows how little they cared for Thomasin and Clym, and where their true intentions were at.
-Michelle Marie
Hi everyone!
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I found extremely interesting in this novel first occurred to me within just the first few chapters. It almost seems that the true main “character” is the heath itself. It is not a human character that is described right off the bat; rather, the novel opens with a description of the rugged setting. In addition, the fact that various characters (i.e. Mrs. Yeobright’s death by the environment) die at the hands of the heath rather than of more traditional causes, such as old age, expands on this. It sends a message that the setting is really the most powerful figure throughout the novel; the human characters are simply byproducts of this merciless environment. In addition, the fact that the two men described in the opening chapter remain nameless for a while is symbolic, as Egdon Heath is the first part of the story to be named and described in full.
-Alix Hietala
Hi Alix!
DeleteAs I started reading the novel that's the first thing I noticed as well. Hardy focuses a lot of attention on the heath. It seems as though the heath is the most powerful "character" and, as you said, the other character's fate heavily relies on it.
One thing I particularly noticed is that it's almost as if the heath rewards the ones who are loyal to it and seeks revenge on those who aren't. For example, Eustacia was so desperate to leave the heath that she married Clym to try to go to Paris. In her attempt to flee, the heath had other plans, and Clym chose to stay. Likewise, Damon is very impulsive. He wants to flee to America with Eustacia, but fails when she leaves him for Clym. In the end, in Damon and Eustacia's last effort to escape the heath, it kills them both. The two who dreamed of running away from the heath were ended by the heath itself.
On the other hand, we see Diggory and Thomasin be loyal to the heath. Ultimately they are rewarded with each other as faithful lovers. Similarly, Clym makes it clear to Eustacia that he wants to stay in the heath. Again, he is rewarded with him becoming a preacher. From this it is evident that the heath has complete control over the characters and is the most powerful.
-Monique Michaud
Hi Alix and Monique,
DeleteI would argue that if there is any main character in this story, it is Diggory Venn. Diggory is the only character who is almost completely disconnected from everyone inhabiting the heath. For this reason, he almost always only appears in passing. However, Diggory is instrumental to the passage of this story. The audience learns early on that he has feelings for Thomasin. By the end of the story, he marries her. I know that is is said that Diggory's purpose for attempting to end the relationship between Mr. Wildeve and Eustacia is to preserve the happiness of Thomasin. I am dubious as to the veracity of this assertion, at least in the later part of the story. His feelings have now been made known to Thomasin, so it is logical that he would do everything in his power to win her over. I believe that the meddling done by Diggory at this point is for his own benefit.
It can be argued that without Diggory's intervention, the tragic events of the story would still have played out. However, I believe that Diggory's manipulation was instrumental to these events and to his eventual marriage to the woman of his dreams. I believe that this story chronicles the life of a reddleman who manipulates the inhabitants of Edgon Heath in order to get what he wants.
Hi everyone!
DeleteI completely agree with Alix. The beginning of the story starts off by describing it in great detail, and, in fact almost the entire first chapter is dedicated to this. When describing the heath, they never even give the names of the characters interacting there. This is because of how integral it is to the story. While it does not serve as the ordinary idea someone would have for a main character, it also fits quite well, as the plot resolves around it. I could also see Diggory Venn as the main character, but with how he seems to represent the heath kind of as a n embodiment of it, this observation also fits. Not only do various characters die there (especially notable as it is in a way the heath killing them, through natural methods), but Diggory Venn also serves as an overseer of everything going on there, and a sort of messenger. He acts as the "eyes" of the heath and could be considered part of it.
-Liam Files
While reading, I found Eustacia’s death to be mysterious. It also happened so fast compared to the previous chapters, where descriptions dragged on and on. Not much detail was provided other than the fact that she fell and drowned. This left me with unanswered questions. Was it suicide? Or did she just slip?
ReplyDeletePrior to her drowning, Eustacia exhibited suicidal tendencies. She also spoke of dying a few times throughout the book. It eventually reached a point where Charley had to hide the pistols as a precaution.
Another explanation for her death would be a supernatural one. In an earlier chapter, Susan Nonsuch was pictured filling a wax doll that resembles Eustacia with pins and then tossing it in the fire to break the “spell“ cast on her son. Coincidentally, Eustacia dies not long after the doll melted in the flames.
The cause of her fall was rather ambiguous in the book. What do you guys think about her sudden death? Was it witchcraft, an accident, or suicide? Please share any other explanations you might have!
Hi Beryl,
DeleteI was quite confused as well during Eustacia's death scene. After rereading it, I think that Hardy purposely left out the details. It's possible that he intentionally left it up to the readers to decide the cause of her death based on what we know about Eustacia's personality.
When I first read that passage, my mind immediately jumped to suicide. Like you said, we know that she did have some thoughts of suicide earlier causing Charley to hide Captain Vye's pistols. Even as she was meeting Damon to flee we see her second-guessing her decision to escape. She worries about not having enough money and Damon following her. She could have chose suicide as the answer, not to mention how her plans in the past have always ended in failure (like fleeing to Paris).
On the other hand, there definitely is strong evidence that could support her death being caused by witchcraft or even being an accident. As mentioned in other posts, Hardy evolves the heath into a character-like figure. After all, she did die at the hands of the heath. The heath itself could have been preventing her from leaving.
Either way you look at it, I do believe that this was purposely done. When you look at the entirety of the novel, Hardy has never missed an opportunity to describe something in detail, so why would he leave crucial information out of one of the most important scenes in the book? I personally like the mystery of her death.
-Monique Michaud
Hi, Beryl and Monique...
DeleteWhen I first read about Eustacia's death, I immediately thought it was suicide as well. I figured she was a very troubled woman, and her troubles lead her to mental insanity. She had no escape, so she resorted to suicide.
However, when I reconsidered the death of Eustacia, and took into account what Monique mentioned about Hardy attempting to leave the cause of death unknown on purpose, and I now believe that her death was not intentional.
Though we know Eustacia was once suicidal (wanting to kill herself with a pistol), we also know that she is very extravagant and is not afraid to make a scene (we see this at the beginning of the novel, with Eustacia [publicly] staying up through the night with a bonfire just to attract Damon). I think she likes having people gossip about her. Because of this, I think her death would have also been extravagant. She wouldn't have chosen a discrete spot in the woods to kill herself. She would have done it where everyone in the Heath could witness and discuss. Also, to continue conveying her extravagance, Hardy would have described the suicide in great detail, showing that she ended her life in an over-the-top manner.
I know that you guys have conflicting opinions on whether or not Eustacia's death was an accident or not, but either way the fact is that Thomas Hardy provided minimal details about the whole incident. As you've said above, I do agree that it was intentional to leave it up to the imagination of the readers. It could be, that he figured it would be a good debate topic, or that he is unsure of it himself. I believe he wanted us to think for ourselves and piece together clues so we could figure out what really happened. Allowing us to think for ourselves and use reasoning and facts to develop theories about his story, versus him just straightforward telling us what happened, with no other perspective to be accounted for.
DeleteOne of the first things I noticed while reading was the description of the reddleman. He is covered from head to toe in the color red. He is accompanied by a red van. His cap, his boots, his hands, and his face are all tinted by the same color. This makes sense due to his occupation. He supplies farmers with a red mineral for marking sheeps and so the pigment seeped into everything he owns. However, I wondered if the color red held any other significance in the book. The color is repeatedly brought up when Hardy describes Diggory Venn, leading me to believe that there must be an alternative meaning to it. Hardy also uses words such as “devilish” to describe his color, so perhaps it is implying that Diggory Venn is connected to the devil. What do you think the color symbolizes? And how does it tie in with the plot?
ReplyDeleteTowards the ending, Diggory Venn is no longer a reddleman. He becomes a dairy farmer and marries Thomasin. It is also noted that he is no longer red. Is this change in color due to him no longer coming into contact with reddle, or is there more to it? I find the repetition of red throughout the book very intriguing and I would love to figure out what it means. If anyone has any thoughts on this, please share!
Hello,
DeleteI also wondered from the beginning what significance the color red would have as the story unfolded, but I was a bit disappointed to see that it never really came up anywhere besides the reddleman. Or, if it did, I didn't catch it.
I can think of a few reasons for Hardy choosing to make Venn this way, but I am not sure if any of them are correct. My first guess is that it was his way of making Venn's otherwise reasonable character seem like a dangerous choice for Thomasin to marry. It was mentioned many times that he made plenty of money to get by, and readers can quickly understand that his character is one of the most morally grounded out of the entire cast. If this is true, then it is the Venn's redness that is keeping him away from Thomasin, as they marry after he decides to leave that trade behind him.
Another thought I had was that the red was supposed to contrast with the heath and the rest of the story. I pictured the heath as mostly muted neutral colors, except in the spring when flowers are blooming. I’m not sure what this could mean since Venn was one of the characters at peace with his place on the heath, and he had no reason to try to appear different from it.
Perhaps Hardy used the juxtaposition of Venn’s character with the color red to better establish his grounded morals and calm persona. Red is typically associated with violence or passion. It is never used to convey a muted or reasonable emotion. Since this is the opposite of Venn, maybe Hardy just wanted to create an instance of irony, or to highlight those calm traits in him by making him externally startling.
As I said, I have no idea if any of these make sense, but I would like to know if anyone else has different ideas as to why Venn was a reddleman or what the color red was supposed to mean.
-Kalina Bonofiglio
Hi Beryl and Kalina,
DeleteI think that Diggory's red hue is a connection to his devilish nature. In this story, he is the only character who achieves his original goal: to be with Thomasin. Eustacia and Mr. Wildeve die, and although Clym and Thomasin find happiness, it is not with their original plans. Diggory is devilish because he only achieves his goal through manipulation. As I mentioned in another post, I do not believe that his interventions throughout the story to "help" Thomasin are all genuine. For this reason, I believe that Diggory's reddish hue is related to his sinning nature, but I also believe that Kalina's interpretations are also highly insightful and well-founded.
Hi Beryl, Kalina and Meghan!
DeleteI agree that Diggory Venn’s association with the color red could symbolize his devilish qualities. He always seems to be in the right place at the right time, which is not only strange, but gives off an eerie vibe. I like what Meghan mentioned about how Venn was manipulative. I believe he was “out to get” Wildeve from the very beginning. On numerous occasions, Venn intervenes in Wildeve’s plans. For example, he trips him with a bundle of furze, attempts to trip him again, knocks on Clym and Eustacia’s door to draw attention to Wildeve, and more. It escalates to the point where Wildeve starts to really worry for his safety. He “had looked upon Venn’s first attempt as a species of horse-play, which the reddleman had indulged in for want of knowing better; but now the boundary-line was passed which divides the annoying from the perilous” (Hardy 265). Here, Venn openly flouts any good morals. It is evident that he is willing to go to great lengths to keep Wildeve away from Eustacia.
I was initially convinced that Diggory was a good man who lived by good morals. Later on, I started to notice this good nature becoming tainted. For the most part, it was little things that he did that started to build up over time. The paradox of his nature baffled me. At one moment he could be the epitome of a gentleman and the next moment he could be plotting against Wildeve. While he often had good intentions, his perverse actions led to disastrous consequences.
There was one other time that the color red popped up. It was in the description of Eustacia given to Susan Nunsuch by her son, Johnny, as she was molding the wax figure. He claimed that Eustacia was wearing “a red ribbon around her neck” (Hardy 348). I’m not quite sure if this actually symbolizes anything, but if I had to guess I would say that it represents her sin. She is an unfaithful wife who continually seeks out Wildeve as a lover. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
Hi everyone,
DeleteI went to Project Gutenberg's online version of this book and searched the word "red." It is used 35 times with most of these describing Diggory or his van. I believe that Kelsey's observation and interpretation of the red ribbon is relevant, as the six paragraphs describing Susan Nunsuch's creation and destruction of the wax doll include the word "red" four times--this means that over 11% of the references to the color red in this novel can be found in this one scene! I do not believe that this was an accident on Hardy's part, and I still stand behind the idea that red represents sin in this novel.
I also found a few references to the color red in relation to fires. This could relate to the fact that Eustacia's original signal fire is a thing of sin in that it is intended to draw a married man to her. I also noticed that Mrs. Yeobright's snake bite is described as being red. The snake is a well-known symbol for Satan. Mrs. Yeobright is bitten because Eustacia does not allow her to enter her home, so Eustacia's act can be considered sinful. I believe that the use of the color red throughout this novel are representative of sin.
Hello everyone,
DeleteI must confess that I never considered Venn a devilish character, but now that it's been mentioned, I can see where the connection is coming from. He does always seem to be in the right place at the right time, and his antics indirectly lead to the tragedies in the book whether he intended to or not. For example, when he forced Wildeve to visit Eustacia during the day, it resulted in Mrs. Yeobright's death. This has gotten me thinking about a few other implications of this symbolism.
This could have been the reason that Mrs. Yeobright was not in favor of him marrying Thomasin, despite the sufficient money he made from his profession. Thomasin never Venn in any sort of romantic way until he had left his trade behind and taken up a more “honest” profession. At this point, he was no longer is associated with the color red, possibly indicating that he has left behind his devilish ways. This would also connect with the fear of witchcraft that is so prevalent on the heath.
Something else that I thought was worth mentioning was that in my edition of the book, there is a footnote saying that in previous versions of the publication, Venn simply disappeared after the night when Eustacia and Wildeve died. He never married Thomasin; his character arc was never completed. How would this other ending either change or build upon the symbolism of the red dye?
I think that having him marry Thomasin does bring the story to a neat close, but I’m curious if anyone thinks that the story would have been better if the reddlemen never came back.
-Kalina Bonofiglio
Hi Kalina,
DeleteMy edition of the book also has that footnote. I found it interesting that Hardy basically left the ending of the novel up to the reader’s own interpretation. I’m not trying to be pessimistic, but I felt that the actual ending was too happy and somewhat undeserved. By marrying Thomasin, Venn was rewarded for his manipulation and scheming. It also seemed out of place. After the drownings of Eustacia and Wildeve, the mood was quite somber. This was most effectively portrayed through Clym’s character as he exuded depression. The “happy” (or in this case much happier than the drowning incident) marriage between Thomasin and Venn, in my mind, just didn’t fit in well with the rest of the plot. Clym didn’t even go to his own relative’s wedding and he had no reason not to.
I agree that the ending Hardy put into place brought it to a nice close. However, I felt this was too much of a fairytale or "Happily Ever After" ending. I honestly think the story may have been better off if the reddleman never returned. There were tragedies and negative emanations all throughout this book, so why not keep up with the gloomy vibe?
Hi Kalina and Kelsey,
DeleteI thought that this footnote was very interesting as well. Hardy adds that "those with an austere artistic code can assume the more consistent conclusion to be the true one." This indicated to me that Hardy was not thrilled to change his ending, and this was confirmed with further research. Hardy was forced to change it by the publishers, due to public pressure to have a happy ending. To me, this emphasized that this novel and its author were very ahead of its time. It was also fascinating to me to see the affects of society on literature.
As Kelsey explained, I too felt that the happy ending was out of place. I think that the continuation of hardship would have been more symbolic than ending the novel with a marriage to cover up all that has happened. However, I found it interesting that society at the time was able to accept the novel if it did this.
-Ali Soucy
Hi all,
DeleteI agree with Kelsey as well in the sense that this ending just seemed too unrealistic, but I couldn't help but wonder if it was meant to draw attention to Clym's loneliness at the end of the novel. In my opinion, Clym is the only character who ends up without a true happy ending. Although he continues on to be a preacher, I'm not so certain that that is the ideal situation for him. He has lost his mother and his wife in a short time period, and ends up on his own. Eustacia and Damon end up dying together and van happily live on in the afterlife. Venn and Thomasin get to live on in a happy life on the heath as well. I think if Venn had been absent, it might have taken away some of the attention from Clym. I feel as though the readers are left with the idea that "the native" of the novel is left to "return" to his normal life, without the presence of others who have caused him great trouble along the way. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this matter?
-Allyse Ernest
Hello Kalina, Kelsey, Ali, etc...
DeleteThe number of published editions and revisions to this text confounds me.
The copy I have is, apparently, (almost entirely) the first edition, as originally published in volume form. It contains the same ending with Thomasin marrying Venn. Among its copious notes appears one explaining that the footnote you reference was added by Hardy in 1912. The note goes on to cast doubt on the claim that the change arose due to editorial pressure, and cites an 1878 letter from Hardy to the illustrator for the serial in which Hardy writes, "Thomasin... is the good heroine, & she ultimately marries the reddleman, & lives happily."
This note also confuses me, as the letter referenced was also reprinted in full in an appendix, and described as being written shortly after the novel was serialized. Which in my mind, doesn't rule out editorial pressure.
-Ben Free
DeleteIn Book Second, there is a lengthy and in depth description of Clym.
ReplyDelete“The beauty here visible would in no long time be ruthlessly overrun by its parasite, thought, which might just as well have fed upon a plainer exterior where there was nothing it could harm...an inner strenuousness was preying upon an outer symmetry, and they rated his look as singular. Hence people who began by beholding him ended by perusing him. His countenance was overlaid with legible meanings. Without being thought-worn he yet had certain marks derived from a perception of his surroundings, such as are not unfrequently found on men at the end of four or five years of endeavor which follows the close of placid pupilage. He already showed that thought is a disease of flesh, and indirectly bore evidence that ideal physical beauty is incompatible with growth of fellow-feeling and a full sense of the coil of things. Mental luminousness must be fed with the oil of life, even though there is already a physical need for it; and the pitiful sight of two demands on one supply was just showing itself here. When standing before certain men the philosopher regrets that thinkers are but perishable tissue, the artist that perishable tissue has to think. Thus to deplore, each from his point of view, the mutually destructive interdependence of spirit and flesh would have been instinctive with these in critically observing Yeobright” (137).
My first reaction after reading this was “Wow, that was deep”. I thought is was interesting how Hardy described thought as a “parasite” and a “disease of flesh”. Why does he believe that physical beauty and mental/emotional growth and intellect cannot coexist? He claims that both survive off the “oil of life” and that it is “pitiful” to attempt to have both survive. What exactly is this “oil of life”? Based off of this passage, brilliance goes hand in hand with the deterioration of the human body. The more intelligent a person becomes, the more it wears on their physical features.
After reading more of the novel, I was able to make a connection that tied back to this idea of a competition between intelligence and physical features. Clym goes partially blind after some excessive reading. Reading is often associated with an acquirement of knowledge. Is it a coincidence then, that Clym’s eyesight deteriorates after he becomes more knowledgeable?
Hi Kelsey,
DeleteYour observation relating this quotation and the later loss of Clym's eyesight is very astute, and I failed to pick up on it! I would like to add that while this loss obviously affects the thinking part of is life, it affects the physical part just as much. In multiple places following Clym's decision to cut furze for a living, his changed appearance is described. Eustacia despairs at being married to a man who goes out in the brown uniform of a furze-cutter. His own mother cannot determine his identity until she notices his gait. I believe that in Clym Yeobright, the theoretical and the physical are intimately related. When one part of his being is diminished, so too is the other. From the quotation you cited, it is proposed that a person can have only one of these things. Since Clym is in possession of both above-average knowledge and attractiveness upon his arrival in Edgon Heath, it makes sense that he comes to have both later in the novel in average condition. However, by the end of the novel he has become a priest. I would argue that by this point, Clym has forsaken his physical beauty altogether and has instead opted for a life of spiritual fulfillment. I believe that in this way, this story sends the message that one must either focus on physical or mental betterment, and that it is impossible to be strong in both areas.
I couldn’t help but think that it was really strange that Thomasin and Damon named their child Eustacia. I don’t understand why a couple would name their kid after an old love of the husband. But I figure that the author must have done it intentionally. Does anybody have any idea why? Or what the name/child could represent symbolically? Both Eustacia and Clym had an unhappy reaction to the name, but I have a feeling that there’s a deeper meaning to it.
ReplyDelete-Caitlin Breslin
Hi Caitlin!
DeleteI noticed that too. I found it extremely strange that the would name their child after Eustacia, who is the cause of their broken marriage. Maybe Thomasin wanted to name the child after her husband's past lover in order to keep him by her side. Perhaps she thought that Damon would love her daughter as much as he loves Eustacia. It could be a way of replacing the actual Eustacia Vye. That's just my guess. If somebody else knows the answer, please share it! I am also very curious.
-Beryl Chen
Hi Caitlin!
DeleteI have to admit that when I first saw that Thomasin had named her baby after Eustacia, I was a bit confused. Not only would it be unsettling to Damon, having his baby named after the woman who he has had feelings for, but also to Clym and Eustacia. I noticed that after she had the baby, Thomasin usually referred to it as "baby". This could have been a result of Clym's unhappiness towards the name choice.
Nevertheless, I believe that Thomasin naming the baby after Eustacia symbolizes the type of person she is. It's evident that Thomasin is a strong person. She has had a lot of tragedies to deal with whether it be her marriage or death. She even walked through the storm carrying her infant daughter in order to find Eustacia and Damon. In the end she perseveres and makes the best out of any situation.
I think that by naming her child after the woman who has done her and her family some deal of injustice, it shows her maturity. This proves how she can see the best in people. The one person who is closest to her is named after someone who she has been forced to overcome.
-Monique Michaud
Hi, Monique! I really like your idea that naming the baby Eustacia shows Thomasin’s maturity. I thought that in a way, she wanted a constant reminder of the woman who had caused so much turmoil and anguish in her marriage. However, without Eustacia (the adult one), their marriage would never have been tested, and she might always have harbored doubts about the solidity of their relationship. When she sees her child, she will always be briefly reminded of how adversity strengthened both her and her husband.
Delete-Kenna Hurtuk
Caitlin, Beryl, etc.,
DeleteMonique and Kenna,
I think that you two bring up an interesting point of Thomasin naming her baby Eustacia showing her maturity and strength. I, however, interpreted it differently. I think that she is young, sensitive, and is truly hurt when she realizes that Damon is having an affair with Eustacia. So I agree with Beryl in that she gives her daughter this name so that Damon's love for their daughter will be matched with his love for Eustacia and that he will focus more on their relationship. As for the child’s second name, Clementine (which I presume is in relation to Clym), Thomasin’s love for her cousin is seen. It is strange to name a child after someone you should despise, coupled with one you love. But perhaps Eustacia Clementine reveals that while there is injustice in the world, beauty still finds a way to shine through.
-Eva Riggott
DeleteHi everyone!
ReplyDeleteI have finished up the book and would like to that I feel a great deal of pity for Eustacia.
sorry computer glitched.
ReplyDeleteEven though she tends to be seen as the root of many problems in the story, and at some points I was not particularly fond of her, she goes through so much of her own pain. Eustacia tends to think only of her own well being, but as previously mentioned, she is only a young girl. She longs for an escape. I don't think it was her intention to hurt Clym. She believed she loved him, but in reality it was the thought of escape she loved. At most times she seems so helpless. This can be seen especially when she considers the pistols, she feels trapped. I can't help but feel sorry for her.
~ Emily Collins
Hi Emily,
DeleteI also felt bad for Eustacia and I completely agree with you that she is also a victim. She married Clym in hopes of going to Paris but that never happened. Then even after Clym began to lose his eyesight, she still stayed with him. Then she unintentionally causes the death of Mrs. Yeobright, which tormented her greatly. The heath had no mercy on Eustacia and her life continued to go downhill. She was tempted to go back to Damon as a way to escape, but fought the urge to cheat. I respect her for staying loyal and doing what is right even though it brought her suffering.
-Beryl Chen
Hi Beryl and Emily! I can completely see why you could feel bad for Eustacia but I personally don't pity her as much as I do Clym or Thomasin. As you said before she married Clym for the purpose of trying to get out of the heath. Throughout the novel I agreed with some of her actions because , like Mr. McArthur had said, she is young and naïve, but I found myself also disliking her behavior and some of the things she did. Eustacia in my opinion was pretty self- centered and mainly looked at how specific events would effect her, not others. A specific example is when her husband begins to go blind, she feels upset that she is married to someone like that and not upset for her husband, who she should love, that is losing his eyesight. I don't think it was a selfless act to stay with Clym, you are supposed to support your partner through the good and the bad and I feel as though it was expectation for couples to stay together. especially if they wanted to keep a good reputation. I can not feel as much pity for her because of how much she pins herself as the victim of every situation she is involved with.
DeleteHi everyone! I have to agree with Sydney here, simply because when you give your vows youre promising to stay with them through everything. Therefore I dont find her staying with him to be a selfless act either. Especially because no matter what had happened to Clym, he still tried to make the best possible life for Eustacia. Yet, I did feel pity for her during her last fight with Clym. It wasn't because I thought that she was innocent, as she clearly wasn't, but she still should have been able to speak her side of the story. Also, it was at this point of the story that we saw true emotion from her regarding how she felt about her husband, and while she did marry him in hopes of leaving the heath, she also married him out of love. While this may be hard to believe because of the way she handled herself in most situations I do believe that she loved him as it was only when she lost Clym that she thought about taking her life. Does anyone else think that while there were other reasons for why she married him, part of her still did truly love him?
Delete-Peighton Stirt
Hi Peighton,
DeleteI agree that some part of Eustacia may have loved Clym, even though her original motive was to leave the heath. Although there may have been some feelings, I don’t think they were very strong. The only person she really cared for was herself. Clym was never her priority.
I agree with what Sydney said, too. She may be young, but she brought this onto herself. I did feel sorry for her at some points in the story, but I didn’t pity her for the most part. Her refusal to accept the heath and her relationships lead to her downfall, and her death. It’s good to dream, but that doesn’t allow you to be selfish when it comes to your wants and desires.
-Kaelyn Perkins
That is very true. Eustacia, first of all, causes many of her problems and makes bad decisions. Then, on top of that, she does in fact, only think of herself, and tend to have a very self centered personality. I agree with that. On a different note, what are everyone's thoughts on Diggory Venn? Does he play a bigger role than it seems? Throughout the story, he stands up for and helps Thomasin over and over despite the fact that he knows she will never marry him. Also, he seems to know all of the secrets kept; he knew about Eustacia and Damon, and that Damon had taken Clym and Thomasin's money that was gambled away by Christian. Then he makes an attempt to get Damon to stay loyal to Thomasin, and gets all the money back from Damon for Thomasin. And he does all this without expecting anything and without being recognized for his actions.
ReplyDelete~ Emily Collins
ReplyDeleteHi, Emily! I also thought it was strange that Diggory went out of his way for Thomasin despite her clear indifference towards him. I thought that hope propelled him to continue to aid Thomasin- he might have been deluded by the idea that if he worked hard and humbly enough for Thomasin, he would eventually catch her attention. Diggory seems to act as a symbol for the futility of quiet affection and care; Thomasin and Eustacia both marry for material gain, not love, and are eventually disillusioned by their decisions. In trying to reconcile companionship with prosperity, they neglect the men who would actually have provided for them, not through wealth but through genuine compassion and adoration.
Delete-Kenna Hurtuk
Hey Emily and Kenna,
DeleteDiggory was personally my favorite character in the whole book. From the very beginning he made sure that Thomasin got back to her aunt in Heath safely after the marriage failure. He then goes on to protect her from Damon and his desire for Eustacia. Diggory loves Thomasin, but he is aware that him being a riddleman doesn't make him Heath's most eligible bachelor, so he is respectful of her wishes on who to marry. He also acts as a glue to help all the characters through their weird love triangles. When Damon and Eustacia are caught walking home from the party late at night, Diggory keeps Clym away from the situation. He also tries to convince all the Yeobrights to get along and rescues Damon and Clym from the water. Without Diggory would any of these people be alive? I don't think that he kept secrets from the others, but rather know what to say when to say it in order to cause the least amount of drama, for example the Eustacia and Damon affair. He wanted peace for Heath, as seen by him retuning to put up a May Pole. Diggory deserved his happy ending with Thomasin. He knew who he was from the beginning, helped everyone in Heath with their problems, managed to get his dream girl and get his dream job.
-Alyssa Carneiro
Hello Emily, Kenna and Alyssa,
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your interpretations of Diggory. I agree with what Alyssa said regarding the importance of Diggory Venn. He saves all the characters in one way or another. The limelight of the story is placed on Eustacia and Damon, and the hardships they cause in the heath. Diggory gets the role of a mediator between all the drama. He prevents the relationships from clashing. He spent his days making sure Thomasin was safe and trying to repair the broken bonds between Mrs. Yeobright and her son. It is only fitting that if anyone is to live a happy ending, Diggory would the one. This shows an underlying message of good prevailing in the end. It also begs the reader to notice that Diggory started living a better life after he left the heath for a short time. He discontinued being a reddleman, and it leaves the audience wondering if the setting is more powerful than we think. He is an outsider, so to speak, that comes in saves the society from many disasters. Diggory's character, while not given much attention, played a large role in the outcome of the novel and characters' lives. The story would have been very different if this minor character were not involved.
-Jordan Bonadies
Hello everyone!
ReplyDeleteDuring the scene where Susan calls Eustacia a witch, I began to realize how often Hardy had made a reference to witchcraft. I found that many people in town have referred to Eustacia as a witch. Even Eustacia has referred to herself as a witch to Wildeve: “I merely lit that fire because I was dull, and thought I would get a little excitement by calling you up and triumphing over you as the Witch of Endor called up Samuel” (43). There is, of course, the incident where Susan calls Eustacia a witch I front of the church. When Clym and Eustacia fight, Clym says he was “bewitched” (218). Then there is the incident where Susan created the wax voodoo doll and throws it in the fire minutes before Eustacia’s death.
Is there a reason that Hardy referred to Eustacia’s control over the men as witchcraft? And what was the purpose of including Susan and her witchcraft?
-Kalina Bonofilgio
Hi Kalina!
DeleteWhen I was reading the novel I also noticed the apparent allusions to with craft throughout the course of the plot. I couldn't help but think of The Crucible at many instances such as when Eustacia claims to be stuck by a pin by Susan. I think this adds to the stereotypes of Eustacia's character, but more importantly, it acts as a strategic plot device in bringing Eustacia and Clym together in the first place.
When Eustacia mentions to Clym that she has been stabbed by Susan's needle in church to Clym, he immediately feels pity for her, therefore catalyzing his feelings for her as well. This moment of sympathy truly drives the two together and ultimately begins their relationship.
Interestingly enough, I feel as though Susan also played a part in ending their marriage. Susan allows her son to speak with Clym regarding what he saw occur at Clym and Eustacia's home. This makes Clym discover the affair, and makes him extremely motivated to end the relationship with Eustacia.
Therefore, Susan is a character who is utilized to initiate changes in Clym and Eustacia's relationship, and I believe that Hardy brilliantly uses this to add to the stereotypes surrounding Eustacia.
Hello Kalina and Allyse,
DeleteI also found myself questioning why Hardy included Susan and witchcraft in this novel. I think that Hardy referred to Eustacia's control over the men as witchcraft because, as we have seen in "The Crucible", witchcraft was seen as a sin and everybody frowned upon it. In this time, women taking control over men was also frowned upon, so I think comparing female dominance with witchcraft is a brilliant way of making the reader understand how wrong and sinful it was to for women to attempt to have that control over men. Hardy makes it apparent that Eustacia wanted that control, but this backfired when, as Allyse mentioned, Clym and Eustacia's marriage ended most likely because of Susan's accusations.
Hey Kalina,
DeleteI noticed the witchcraft references, too. I think part of the reason it’s included is to have the reader remember the setting is a long time ago, not recently. Witchcraft was part of cultures centuries ago, and I think Hardy incorporated it into the story to remind us of the time period and setting of the book. Witchcraft also seemed to have the purpose of explaining the things that couldn’t be explained by anything else. Susan’s son’s sickness had no explanation, unless you believe Eustacia is a witch. You also can’t explain the control she seems to have over others, unless you believe she had powers or spells to help her control people. Witchcraft was easy for people back then to believe about others who were odd, which is how Eustacia was viewed by many.
-Ryan Lentocha
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteAbout halfway through this book, I began to appreciate the point of view that this book is told in. Hardy uses a third person narrator that focusses on one character at a time, highlighting their thoughts and feelings, before shifting to another character. This gives the reader both distance to and knowledge of the emotions of many different characters, which allow us to make rather objective judgements about a complicated situation. It also allows Hardy to apply a generous helping of dramatic irony to his story.
The first time that I really took a step back from the story was during the scene where Eustacia chooses to not open the door for Clym’s mother. Many coinciding events occur to create a sort of perfect storm that leads to her death. If Venn hadn’t made it so impossible for Wildeve to come at night, he never would have been there during the day. If Mrs. Yeobright had not made a comment about Eustacia and Wildeve, Eustacia might have opened the door. If she hadn’t been denied at her son’s house, Mrs. Yeobright wouldn’t have been bitten by the adder, etc. The different viewpoints that this was told from allowed the reader to know exactly what happened long before most of the characters did. For example, by the time Eustacia discovered Clym and his mother on the side of the road, the reader already knew what had happened. Eustacia did not. The reader watches for many pages as Clym tries to piece together the events of the night, and the reader anxiously awaits his explosive reaction when he finally discovers the truth.
The most notable instance of Hardy’s carful plotting occurs during the sequence leading up to the deaths of Eustacia and Wildeve. Clym decides to wait two days before reaching out to Eustacia, and when the letter finally arrives, her grandfather, not wanting to disturb her late at night, leaves it on the mantle for her to find in the morning. If Eustacia had received the letter, it is possible that she might have decided to stay at home and try one more time to make things right with Clym. Maybe she wouldn’t have died that night; maybe she would have. The storm mirrors the drama of the scene as almost every character we have met is frantically running about in the storm, either chasing or being chased. Hardy, again, structured his story so the reader was with the character who was seeing the most action. By the time all of the characters have returned, dead or alive, the reader already knows the full story, before any of the remaining character piece together what has happened.
Hardy’s genius plotting and mastery over his point of view was one of the few things that I thoroughly enjoyed in this novel. By ensuring the reader was always in the right place and with the right person to fully understand what was going on, he kept the focus on his characters. The reader could watch as the characters tried to piece together events that the reader already understood instead of trying to figure it out with the character.
On another note, I enjoyed how his intentional narration created the idea that fate was set against many of the characters. By witnessing each tragic event, the reader was tantalized with opportunities for the characters to avoid misfortune, but they never took those paths. Eustacia could have opened the door for her mother-in-law, and her grandfather could have woken her up to deliver the letter. In fact, each of the characters seemed to make the worst possible choice, and the reader got to watch as these poor choices, intentionally on not, created a downward spiral that ultimately pulled Eustacia and Wildeve down with it.
I guess I had lot more to say on this topic than I realized. If anyone else has any comments on the role of fate in the story or on Hardy’s masterful (or not) use of point of view, I’m curious to hear them.
-Kalina Bonofiglio
Hi Kalina! I recently finished the book and was amazed at how Hardy was able to weave together such misery and confusion through thoughtless acts. The entire story is a series of seemingly meaningless decisions that end up leading to terrible outcomes. These chance events like, Damon arriving at the Eustacia's house just as Mrs. Yeobright is or, Charlie inadvertently sending a message to Damon via the bonfire, carry the story out to its tragic end. Had the characters trusted one another and been honest, so much heartbreak could have been avoided. Yes, this is story is highly dramatized, but, things like this happen in real life as well. In fact, I would go as far as to say that life is made up of these decisions and we never know how important they will end up being until they have played out.
Delete- Kylie Boyle
I recently finished the book and was amazed at how Hardy was able to weave together such misery and confusion through thoughtless acts. The entire story is a series of seemingly meaningless decisions that end up leading to terrible outcomes. These chance events like, Damon arriving at the Eustacia's house just as Mrs. Yeobright is or, Charlie inadvertently sending a message to Damon via the bonfire, carry the story out to its tragic end. Had the characters trusted one another and been honest, so much heartbreak could have been avoided. Yes, this is story is highly dramatized, but, things like this happen in real life as well. In fact, I would go as far as to say that life is made up of these decisions and we never know how important they will end up being until they have played out.
ReplyDelete- Kylie Boyle
(Sorry, did not mean to publish this twice!)
DeleteThe ending of the story got me wondering if Eustacia could have ever been happy with her life. She was always wanting after something whether it be Damon, Clym, Paris, status in society or something else. So, I am wondering, do you guys think that, had Clym been well and they moved to Paris she would have been fulfilled, or do you think her personality made her destined for disappointment?
ReplyDelete- Kylie Boyle
Hi Kylie!
DeleteIf Clym had taken Eustacia to Paris as she originally believed would happen she would have finally felt fulfilled in life. Paris represents everything Eustacia desires: luxury, adventure, and culture. From early on in the story Eustacia makes clear her hatred for the heath and her aspirations to leave. When Clym refuses to take her to Paris she realizes the love she had for him was starting to fade, thus revealing that part of her love for Clym was the knowledge that he could fulfill her dreams and take her away from the health. Had her dreams been fulfilled from the beginning she never would have come to this realization and lived her life believing that she truly loved Clym because he gave her everything she wanted.
Eustacia would have been happy with Clym despite her feelings for Damon because she’s an extremely materialistic person and desired wealth and status above all else. She doesn’t begin to continue her feelings with Damon until she begins to feel the shame of Clym becoming a furze-cutter, a job she believes is beneath both their status even though it’s only temporary. Her feelings for Damon grow and she regrets marrying Clym when she learns that Damon has recently come into a considerable wealth. Her desires drive her actions as well as her feelings for others, which is why she truly would have been happy with Clym had he given her everything she wanted by taking her to Paris.
-Marisa Vatteroni
Hi Marisa and Kylie!
DeleteI definitely agree with Marisa. Although at times it may seem that Eustacia's wants never end, I don't think that she is being unreasonable. I think in order to fully understand her situation, we have to look at it from her point of view. Eustacia is so young, but at the same time expected to be a good wife and mother. It's evident that Eustacia is not meant to fit in with what society expects her to be.
I think Eustacia is mostly driven by her desire to have a bit of independence and freedom from Edgon heath. These "wants" that she has (like Clym and Paris) are just ways to keep her occupied and, as Marisa mentioned, things that motivate her. I don't think it's a matter of always wanting something different. I think she is reasonable in the sense that everything she has wanted plays a role in getting her to her end goal.
-Monique Michaud
Hi everyone!
DeleteAlthough I understand the viewpoint of Marisa and Monique, I tend to disagree. I believe that Eustacia is not truly in love with the idea of going to Paris. Instead, I think that she is in love with all that which is unattainable. She is first in love with Mr. Wildeve because he is to be married to another woman. This "love" soon fades when she becomes infatuated with another man--Clym, whose status and foreign relations make him a difficult commodity for her to acquire. She later falls back in love with Mr. Wildeve when he inherits a considerable amount of money, as although he has offered to travel with her, both are married to others. I believe that Eustacia is only in love with going to Paris because it is a seemingly unattainable goal. Upon arrival in Paris, I believe that Eustacia would quickly fall in love with another impossible place, person, or way of life. I believe that as a character, she is destined to despair no matter how ideal her circumstances.
Hi Meghan,
DeleteI agree with your point of view on what Eustacia wants. I do not believe that she would ever be able to be happy with her life, whether it is because she truly is not content or because she does not allow herself to be content. There is a part of her that only wants what she does not have, but in addition to this, always chasing something may give her more of a thrill than enjoying her current situation. For example, why would she remain stuck in her uneventful life when she can escape by dreaming of a supposedly better life in Paris instead? It is a vicious cycle because not only will Eustacia never be happy, but she also seems to be forcing herself to believe that obtaining whatever her current infatuation is will make her happy.
I personally believe that Eustacia does not seem to act out of love very often; her actions are motivated by obsession and a desire to escape.
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure we can all agree that Eustacia is quite an interesting character throughout the book. One thing about her that caught my eye is that generally, a person as selfish and narcissistic as herself would end up as a dynamic character and eventually experience some sort of epiphany that transforms her into a more thoughtful and generous person; however, she remains cruel and immature to the very end of her life. Do you find this more relatable to the real world or do you think that there may be some truth to the aforementioned cliche character development that could have proven itself effective in this situation? Thank you!
-Alix Hietala
Hey Alix,
DeleteThat's a very good question. I do not believe Eustacia could've had an epiphany because she seems to continually want more. She clearly always wanted to leave the heath and would do anything she could to promote the betterment of herself. In this process, she would completely disregard others' feelings and would negatively affect others around her. Her marriage with Clym was basically a facade so she could try and leave the heath. Ultimately, this contributes to her inability to grasp how selfish and immature towards the compassion of others she is. Nothing ever seemed good enough to her and she thought she could live this rich, aristocratic life in Paris, but could not grasp leaving the heath. To me, Eustacia seemed to try and grow up too fast, therefore contributing to her never experiencing a realization of how she was truly behaving.
-James Heaney
Hi Alix and James,
DeleteUpon first read I also found it odd that Eustacia never grew and developed as a character. However, I think Hardy did this in order to show just how trapped she was in the Heath. She was willing to do anything to escape and obviously becomes very depressed because of this drab place that she lives. However, it was never of any use. This made me pity Eustacia even more because she never gets the chance to experience the outside world. She ends her life in the same torturous place she desperately wanted to get out of, and I think Hardy definitely did this symbolically.
-Ali Soucy
Hi Alix,
DeleteI think that is a very good point. If she would have developed into the "typical" dynamic character and transformed herself into a better person then the everything would've probably been different and things may have turned out better. Because she remained the same selfish character throughout, it is much easier to connect and understand how the things she did had consequences. If she changed and their was no punishment for her actions, the lessons learned by the different characters could have completely different. I think that it is the lack of this epiphany that helps the story and characters to develop.
-Jack Riggott
DeleteHi Alix!
ReplyDeleteThat’s a very interesting question. I think it would have been very cool to see how the story might’ve been different if Eustacia had changed. I think it is, though, more relatable to the world this way. Eustacia goes wrong so many times and tangles herself up until she is trapped with nothing left to do. It would’ve been hard for her to change because the Heath was the root of her problems. It was a part of her, and trapped her, but maybe it would’ve been different if she had gone to Paris with Clym. Her personality might’ve lightened and she could’ve learned a little something.
~ Emily Collins
Hi Emily and Alix!
DeleteI think that Eustacia being a static character and continuing to remain a selfish and narcissistic person is a way to show her youth and immaturity. Due to her youth it's realistic that she would have desires and dreams for her future that guide her actions. It would not have been realistic for Eustacia to change her ways and be content with the life she had. She had always desired wealth, luxury, and a life outside the heath. These desires from the beginning were her main motivations and for her to abandon them would be unrealistic. I agree that the heath is the root of her problems and as long as she remained there she would never be able to change. Until she fulfilled her desires she would always feel incomplete and search for more, which is why she appears to be selfish and narcissistic.
-Marisa Vatteroni
Hi guys!
DeleteI think another reason Eustacia was left a static character was so that everyone around her was capable of change. Because the readers are left shocked and appalled by some of her actions, they can feel more happiness or fulfillment when they see people like Venn growing or changing into a dairy farmer, or Thomasin becoming stronger and Clym pushing through his disability to become a preacher. Eustacia, in this way, can become a pivot on which the other characters change and grow. It amplifies her actions, and shows that they are embedded into her character, instead of just being a plot convenience. If Eustacia had come to some sort of epiphany, it would take away from the changes and triumphs that other characters experienced, and would give them no reason to grow.
Maggie Watson
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteAs many others have noted the heath as an important "character" in the novel, I have also had some realizations about its significance. I noticed an apparent connection between those who love the heath and the time that they have spent there. Clym and Thomasin seem to be the main characters who appreciate the heath, being that is what they have grown up with the majority of their lives. They don't see it as confining in any way, because it is all they have ever known. Even Clym, who has had a glimpse of what Paris and civilization has been like, would rather spend his time on the heath. This makes me begin to wonder how Thomasin would have reacted if she had the opportunity to escape the heath. She says that she cannot imagine living anywhere else, as she is merely a country girl and has always been. But, if she saw what was beyond the heath would she rethink her desires? Or would she be drawn back to the seemingly loving heath as Clym was? Similarly, I also wonder how Eustacia would feel if she finally did escape as well.
In addition, Clym's loyalty to the heath intrigues me. He remains loyal, yet the events on the heath have really caused him a great deal of trouble. He enters a rocky relationship with Eustacia, ends up going blind, has to become a furze cutter to make ends meet, and ultimately loses his mother and his wife all at the hands of the heath. Clym can't seem to catch a break. However, he seems rewarded by this in the end when he becomes a preacher, but I can't help but wonder if he is truly happy that way. Maybe he is "rewarded" for being faithful throughout the series of obstacles? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
-Allyse Ernest
Hi Allyse!
DeleteAs I was reading the novel I also noticed Clym's tireless faith. Though his mother does not support his marriage, he never gives up on her. Though he loses the majority of his sight, he keeps working hard. And, though Eustacia wronged him and his mother, he never stops loving her and waiting for her return. The major difference I noticed in Clym is his ability to accept responsibility for his actions. Though he does this too much at times, it is still honorable. Eustacia and Damon blame the heath for all of their woes. They are never wrong, the heath is. In this way, they can escape responsibility for their actions. Though Clym will never be truly happy due to all of the guilt he carries with him, I feel that he is content enough. He has truly experienced life and he knows better than to blame a piece of land for life's issues. Also, he is powered by his desire to make up for all the wrongs that have occurred in his life.
- Kylie Boyle
Hey everyone!
DeleteThe Eustacia's death scene was very strange for a lot of reasons. One strange event that still confuses me after rereading the scene was when Diggory, Clym, and Damon all jumped into the water to save Eustacia, but Damon was the only one who died along with her. Why did Diggory and Clym get to live and reach their full potential with new jobs, while Damon fell victim to the water? Is this a Romeo and Juliet type thing? Without his true love alive, is there no potential future for Damon?
-Alyssa Carneiro
Hi,
Deletewhen I was reading the return of the native I spotted, and agree with many of the points stated above. One other point that I noticed was that only the characters that didn't want to leave heath were the ones to survive to live out their lives. Both Eustacia and Damon want to leave heath and because of this they were the ones to drown. This points to heath being a character of the story as much as any of the others. In fact the characters are defined by their relation to the heath, and the weather patterns of the heath even reflect the inner dramas of the characters. because of this I see heath as the most important influence in the book, or even as a sort of narrator.
-Teddy Fischer
Hi Alyssa!
ReplyDeleteIt does seem a lot like Romeo and Juliet. I think there was some sort of connection between them, like we see throughout the entire story. Eustacia always comes back to Damon. And in the end he is willing to die for her. I think it is closure to their love story. They can’t be together in life, so will both be together in death. While Clym was angry with Eustacia and broke their connection, and Diggory has a reason to live. Both Clym and Diggory have a connection to Thomasin, and therefore have a reason to live.
~ Emily Collins
Hi Emily,
DeleteTo add to your point, Eustacia and Damon meeting their end together brings closure to their story and, similarly, stays true to the love they shared. Their love was never a lasting one; they fell back on each other only when nothing else was working out, and they only ever felt anything toward each other when it was morally forbidden, as if it was the rebellion that was keeping them together. This ending emphasized the paradox of their love by keeping them together, but also forever apart.
-Kalina Bonofiglio
Hey guys,
DeleteI also found some questions surrounding the death of Eustacia. I feel as if her death wasn't just an accident, but almost some sort of suicide attempt. Eustacia refuses to adapt and just accept her connection to the heath. As a result, she dies in an attempt to flee the heath. But it isn't just nature that helps kill Eustacia. The people around Eustacia and her relationship with the community around her also cause a lot of a problems. This makes me think Eustacia didn't actively commit suicide, but she was certainly careless of her own safety and didn't really care if she did die.
Any thoughts?
- Kevin Shorey
Kevin:
DeleteI think that Hardy makes it quite clear that Eustacia committed suicide. On the subject of whether her death was intentional, there are quite a few details that suggest, to my mind at least, that she did mean to kill herself:
Firstly, her previous suicidal thoughts. Recall that she, without a doubt, intended to kill herself with her grandfather's pistols upon her return to his house. After Charlie hides the pistols before she can retrieve them, Eustacia admits to him that suicide was her intent.
Secondly, Hardy foreshadows her death, more specifically by suicide, when her grandfather visits Clym following her disappearance. Her grandfather explains to Clym, "[Charlie] saw Eustacia looking curiously at them [the pistols]; and afterwards owned to him that she was thinking of taking her life, but bound him to secrecy...people who think that sort of thing once think of it again" (Hardy 352). By mentioning suicide right before describing Eustacia's death, it's clear that Hardy is trying to push that possibility.
Thirdly, in preparing to meet up with Wildeve, Eustacia forgot to bring any money with her. Mid-flight, she realizes this. It then dawns on her that she has absolutely no means of paying for transportation out of Budmouth. This plunges her into an immense inner hopelessness. It's not a large leap to make to assume that that realization drove her over the edge.
Finally, and more as a side note, an accidental plunge into the Shadwater Weir seems unlikely based on its physical location. If your copy of the book has a map (a quick Google search works too), take a look. The weir is further down the road than the Quiet Woman Inn, her intended destination, especially when you consider that she was coming from Mistover. Disorientation, while possible, is unlikely due to Wildeve's lantern.
- Ben Free
Hi Kevin,
DeleteI believe it is true that Eustacia was extremely free spirited, to the point where she had the will to end her life pretty carelessly. She had several relationships that simply were not compatible for her and her desires for her life, but she still always wanted to live life to the fullest. In the end, it was pretty clear that the environment around her was not compatible for her. She wanted to live a way that is very forward for even our time, and given the place she was in it would be impossible to live that way, so she did the best she could, and that ended up in her killing herself.
-Keegan Jalbert
Thomas Hardy's mind kind of freaked me out after finishing this book of his. The man seems to have a complete and dominant understanding of human behavior, being able to analyze individual characters in a such a detailed and precise way, that it became oddly startling to me that such an understanding was achieved so many years ago with such limited education at the time compared to modern day. Every slight action performed by a character is explained meticulously, and without that detail, the book could have been about only one hundred pages, the detail adds that much substance. To me, someone very interested in the human brain, that is the biggest take-away I get from this book. Hardy doesn't focus on one character with the novel being an intense character study on their behaviors, rather he juggles about four, (five if you count Venn,) unique main characters. Eustacia, Wildeve, Clym and Thomasin perform their actions, which on the surface seem to be normal and trivial, but when looked at for more than a second you see so much more. When Wildeve goes for a walk, he isn't just going on a walk, he is embarking on a journey to feel the same way he did when he was with Eustacia, his lust brings him on a quest for love. That's just the first example that popped in my head of a basic event that means so much more, but it can also be so much more subtle, like Thomasin's body language when she seems Wildeve return from that walk, with knowledge that he once had feelings for Eustacia and now jealousy boiling in her making her look uncomfortable to Wildeve. Such little behaviors have so much more to them in this novel.
ReplyDeleteAlso, those characters rank best to worse if you rank them by interest as Eustacia, Clym, Thomasin, and finally Wildeve and that is gospel in my mind try to convince me otherwise, you WON'T.
Once last thing to comment on is how I actually adore how Hardy transitions from one character to another. It is so seamless and clean that it feels like as you finish reading about one character you fly up into the air overlooking the Heath and glide back down into another character's life on the other side of the Heath. In many books it is very jarring when it goes from one character to another, starting with a new character every chapter let's say. Hardy however transfers mid chapter in that same strangely mystifying way which immerses you into Edgon Heath in such a beautifully gorgeous way that I have read no where else.
****KEVIN DOOLEY****
Hi Kevin!
DeleteI wanted to start by saying I laughed out loud reading your comments (in a good way) because here you are saying you are enraptured with the way Hardy writes and gives so much detail to the tiniest things, and you are doing exactly that in your comment. I truly mean this as a compliment and really did enjoy reading it, that's why I wanted to add to it.
Hardy is obviously a strange and brilliant man, to have that much insight into the human mind and make the simplest thing such as going on a walk, be turned into a quest for finding a reason to love. I believe he wrote this story exactly as he sees life and was trying to have others see it in the same way. His intention is for human beings to become aware that theres always so much more than what is seen at the surface.
You stated that he writes in such a way that immerses you into the story and I couldn't agree more. I have to be honest and say that it wasn't my favorite book to read but nevertheless I couldn't seem to stop thinking about it once I made my way through.
- Jillian Fiddler
DeleteHi Kevin and Jill!
DeleteI just wanted to start off my saying that I agree with both of you regarding how brillant Thomas Hardy is. I don't think that I could name a book that describes every single event with such vivid and precise detail. Although, like I've said before, it creates a dull read at times, Hardy's complete certainity in his writing creates a compelling novel. At points, I even felt like I was watching some sort of glorified soap opera. Like Jill said, this style of writing allows the reader to immerse themselves into the story, in the way that any good book or film does. This is something I can really appreciate, especially because the summer is the perfect opportunity to become absorbed in a story.
In addition to my appreciation of Hardy's writing style, I also enjoy what you guys had to say about the development of the characters. Although it really boils down to the meticulous description, almost every character seems to have layers upon layers. Unlike some books, where characters seem almost one-dimensional and like products of the plot, Hardy's mastermind was able to craft real people, full of as many dreams, desires, fears, and thoughts as any of us. They all contributed to the development of the plot and not once did it seem like a character or event was a pawn a plot convience.
So, altogether, I commend Hardy's complete grasp on human behavior and I would be interested to see if this same consistency appears in all of his work.
Many of you have commented on how the characters are affected by Egdon Heath, and it occurred to me that maybe Hardy is trying to portray Egdon as a character itself. The characters have different attitudes towards Egdon. For example, Thomasin loves it to the depth of her heart. We see that she is blessed all the time. When she is going to be married to someone like Demon Wildeve, it saves her from him. She becomes wife of a sincere person like Reddleman. Egdon looked out for Thomasin. Reddleman is also a part of Egdon Heath. He sings, walks and enjoys every bit of life there. He is sincere, loyal and sympethetic toward Egdon Heath and its inhabitant. So we see he leads a happy life in the end of the novel, seemingly as a result of his character traits and actions in Egdon. Hardy almost portrays Egdon as rewarding its "citizens" who are kind and lead happy and good lives, like Reddleman and Thomasin. For characters like Demon Wildeve and Eustacia, their attempted escape from Egdon results in their deaths by drowning.
ReplyDelete- Stephen Sutton
Hi Stephen
DeleteI agree with you that Hardy could be trying to portray the Heath as a character, but I also think that the Heath does more than just influencing emotions. I believe that the Heath is one of the novels biggest symbols that additionally foreshadows the end for all the characters. For example both Thomasin and Clym found the beauty in the Heath, and they are one of the few who survived and eventually moved on from the tragedies of their past. Eustacia had always hated it, and she died in a horrible way. These could all just be coincidences but while I was reading it, whether it was intuition or just guesses, I accurately predicted where the characters lives was going to end up like.
Hello Stephen and Bonnie,
DeleteI found it interesting how you guys interpreted Egdon. I had not thought of it in the way you guys described it, but after reading your comments I couldn't agree more with the idea that the characters' attitudes towards the Heath foreshadow their fate and the life they live. It seems as though the more Eustacia tried to escape and the more she expressed hatred towards the heath she got more and more trapped in Egdon.She married Clym as a way to try and get out, but instead she ended up in a marriage she didn't want to be in, which led to many more unfortunate events.
This almost reminds me of Gaea (mother earth) from Greek mythology. She was the mother of all and was mostly benevolent. Until her husband pissed her off and then everything went out the window. This goes with the "mother nature" theme, with her feeling a love for all, but also a strong sense of justice towards her creations. She is benevolent, but has her limits.
DeleteJust a thought.
Abby Davidson
Hi Abby,
DeleteYour connection between the heath and Gaea is something I had not thought of, but it works really well with the story. As Stephen, Bonnie, and Sydney were saying, the heath does seem to give its inhabitants what they deserve, so to speak. The heath is not willing to give to those who try to escape it; in fact, it traps Damon and Eustacia there in their deaths. In this situation, it seems as though the heath gets the last word against them and spitefully gives them their final resting place. They never were able to reach Paris or even leave the limits of the heath because they were killed along the way.
As Madalyn and Abby have most recently touched upon, it does seem that Hardy has included Greek elements into this novel. You both mentioned Gaea and mythology, yet I was wondering if anyone thought the novel was similar to a Greek tragedy? Eustacia and Damon both die trying to escape, which does seem like Romeo and Juliet. While that is not a Greek tragedy, it is still a tragedy. A Greek tragedy is a drama which depicts the downfall of a basically good person through some fatal error or misjudgment, producing suffering and insight on the part of the protagonist and arousing pity and fear on the part of the audience. This good person could be Eustacia and the novel does indeed depict her downfall. If anyone has additional comments on this topic feel free to voice your thoughts and ideas.
Delete- Stephen Sutton
I actually got a lot of Shakespearean vibes from this book. The whole messy chain of unrequited/impossible love reminded me a little bit of Twelfth Night and a Midsummer Night's Dream, (except that those had happy endings) while the ending seemed very parallel to Romeo and Juliet.
DeleteAbby Davidson
What's Up Dawgs,
DeleteStephen I agree completely on the fact that the Heath is much more than just the setting but a very powerful and influential character in and of itself.
The Heath is somewhat of an overseeing God throughout the novel. The first chapter is a crucial point in seeing this. The title of the first chapter is "A Face on Which Time Makes but Little Impression". Then chapter then proceeds to describe the Heath in great detail. This personification of the Heath by using the title to show how the Heath is in complete control of itself and other characters who reside to the Heath.
-Kevin Shorey
Even though the book is divided into six other books, I was wondering what people think the general climax of the novel is. My thought is that the climax is when Eustacia Vye dies, and then Damon Wildeve and Clym Yeobright try and save her, resulting in Damon's death. This seems to be the point in the novel where everything goes wrong, and there is no way to go back from these events. Leading up to these events Eustacia and Damon agree to go to Paris together. I do not feel this is the climax as there is still a chance for them to reverse their decisions. In the end, they do not do so, resulting in their deaths. If people have thoughts on this please feel free to share them here.
ReplyDelete- Stephen Sutton
Hello Stephen,
DeleteI would have to agree with you that the ultimate climax is when Eustacia dies. I'd say this because it leads to tragedy and there is absolutely no point of return. Eustacia and Damon can never fulfill their dreams to escape Egdon. Like you said before they had time to change their decision, but they didn't. This also goes back to your idea from earlier, that what you put into the heath is what you get out. When they are finally getting ready to escape the heath they die.
Hello Stephen and Sydney,
DeleteI also agree that the climax is when Eustacia dies. My thoughts are that there are very few things that are more permanent than death. When two main characters die that is a point of no return. Now that the two characters are dead there is no point of return and the falling action begins at that point. I also agree that the decision to go to Paris is not the climax because there are many points of return from that decision.
-Michael D'Averso
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteI have been considering the title of this novel, and I am unsure as to who the "native" is. In my first reading, I believed that the native was Clym. Clym grows up in Egdon Heath, goes to Paris for a few years, and then returns to the heath. I thought that he was an appropriate choice for the titular "native" because his return to the heath sets into motion the events of the story. However, after further thought, another character's return to the heath seems to have a similar effect.
Diggory Venn had been a full-time inhabitant of Egdon Heath until he was rejected by Thomasin. At this point, he decides to become a reddleman and thereby signs himself onto a life of travelling. Once he learns of the sinister relationship between Eustacia and Wildeve, he decides to remain in the heath. He never leaves after this point, so he has returned in this sense. By the end of the novel, he has also returned to his natural pigmentation and to a stationary profession. I believe that Diggory is a reasonable candidate for the "native" because many of the dramatic events of the story would not take place without his intervention. What do you all think? Could both of these characters represent the titular native?
Hi Meghan,
DeleteI suppose that both characters could be considered for the novels title, but I had always thought Clym was to be the one represented in the title. In a literal analysis, it would have to be someone returning to the heath. Both Diggory and Clym fit that description as you've said, but the " native" part only applies to Clym, as he was born there. Also, a deeper analysis is that you could think of someone returning as a person coming back and making a mark, impacting people and things around them. Like how (Harry Potter) "Voldemort had returned." It wasn't just a phrase that let people he had come back, but that they knew something was going to happen because of him. A drastic example maybe, but Clym had a huge affect on the book, more than him just returning to his hometown. There is no doubt that without his appearance in the story, all the characters would be living completely different lives.
Hi Bonnie and Meghan,
DeleteI agree that an argument can be made for both Diggory Venn and Clym Yeobright, but I believe that the "Native" in the title refers to Clym Yeobright. He returned from Paris to his home and the place that always had a special place in his heart. He was born in the heath and is one of the only characters that expresses a deep love for it while others like Eustacia and Wildeve express deep hatred. I also agree that Clym must be the native because his return had a major impact on the events of the book. With his return he began a relationship with Eustacia who believed she would be whisked away to Paris and given the life she always wanted, but he had no intention of returning. His love for the heath caused him to to grow a resentment for Paris and a desire to return home, which is why once he was back he wasn't going to leave. He tried to give Eustacia a good life in the heath, but could never give her the life she really wanted outside of it. This caused Eustacia to resent him and tore their relationship apart, which eventually led to the climax of the story, Eustacia and Wildeve's death. Clym's major effect on the plot is the reason why he is the "Native" in the title.
-Marisa Vatteroni
Hello Meghan, Bonnie and Marisa,
DeleteThe thought had not previously crossed my mind that the novel's title could be directed towards Diggory Venn. After reading Meghan's response, it provoked more thought towards the idea. He does make a return to the heath after struggling with Thomasin, but as Bonnie and Marisa have pointed out, Diggory is not from the heath originally. The definition of native can be interpreted in different ways, one meaning: association to a place or country. Although, Diggory does not fall under this category either. He is not known for living in the heath, only inhabiting it from time to time. This does put the focus back on Clym and his return. Even though Diggory is one of the first characters introduced in the novel and one of the last to finish it off, the plot was driven by the life of Clym. I think Thomas Hardy involved Diggory's character to add more depth to the meaning of the title. We see how Diggory makes a return and gives the readers hope of resolutions of problems surrounding the heath, but his minor character is not able to save the destruction. Clym is the main character in control and the focus of the plot. As Marisa pointed out, he lead the novel to the climax. Diggory Venn's spotted appearances and impactful role exhibit certain qualities of the title, but they do not fully embrace it as Clym's character does.
-Jordan Bonadies
Hello Guys,
ReplyDeleteSo I noticed that throughout the book, Clym Yeobright was referred to as Yeobright when talking or referring to his mother, and he was called Clym when referring to or interacting with Eustacia. I thought this could be a way to show his independent self verses the side of him tied to his family and the heath. When he is with his mother, he is called Yeobright, the family name, to show that no matter what estranges him from his mother, he will always feel connected to her. This was shown in the book because he clearly valued his mother's opinion regarding his path in life, and frequently checked with her to see if she approves, but once she disagrees with him, he begins to seek his new life with Eustacia and a job as a teacher, and Hardy begins calling him Clym, to show his independence and his willingness to break out of the confines of his mother's expectations and societal norms. When he helps cure his mother of the venom, he is called Clym, perhaps to show that even though he still loves her, he is now his own man and can act independently.
Of course, once I started to notice this, I saw the rule did not always apply, so maybe the times I caught were just coincidence. Or could there be a reason for the switch? Maybe the names have some other correlation that I didn't catch. Or maybe Hardy just switched his name whenever he felt like and sat at his writer's desk going "hmm I wonder how I'll mess with my reader's heads today..."
Maggie Watson
Hello Maggie!
DeleteI must say, while reading I did notice the switch between the usage of first and last names, but had never really prescribed any significance to it until I saw your comment. I would like to add on by saying that at the end of the novel, as he is described giving his sermon, Hardy once again refers to him as Yeobright. This led me to think that perhaps it might not have to deal directly with his mother, but rather is meant to alter the reader's perception of him between the two sides we see of him. By using his first name, it causes the reader to see him in a more personal, informal way. So, alternatively, when he referred to as Yeobright, it gives him a more dominant, and independent presence as the man of the Yeobright family. So like you noticed, by using "Yeobright" when discussing his future goals, it may be to make him seem more like a capable man, and reserves "Clym" when its his relationships.
Hi guys,
DeleteI, too, didn’t pay much attention to this until I saw your comment. I agree with Maggie, that by calling him Yeobright, connects him to his mother, especially since Mrs. Yeobright was never given a first name. She is known as a wife, mother, and aunt, so when Clym is with her, he is referred to as Yeobright to emphasize their connection.
I also agree with Lydia. By calling him Yeobright, creates a more formal image of him. Since his father has passed, he is seen as the head of the family, which, especially during this time, would receive respect. I believe that either of those explanations could’ve been the reason for going back and forth between the two names.
-Kaelyn Perkins
While reading this book, I honestly found it pretty hard to stay focused. The beginning was fairly slow and was mainly descriptive of the heath more than anything else. The description itself was hard to follow as well! It almost started the book on a desolate and depressing note. I did find it interesting how much elaboration Hardy actually did put into the heath, almost talking as if it were a person, yet while everyone around in is changing, it continues to stay the same. It withstands change without altering itself which I find very ironic considering the social conflict in this text alters many of the characters. As I continued to read, and with the introduction of characters, I started to like it a lot and became more intrigued in the story.
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that the characters live in a small town and there's not much do to, which is why things like gossip would spread so quickly - everyone knows everything in a small town (aka Tolland...). It's almost like that was the most entertaining thing to do back then, they were living in their own reality TV show. Throughout the text I couldn't help but compare Eustacia and Hedda from "Hedda Gabler". Both of their marriages were not very genuine, they care about their social life a lot, and they both want to escape from the boring towns and lives they're living.
Probably my biggest question about this book was why it was titled, "Return of the Native". Clym is definitely the native in the text and he's also the only one to leave and return to his home, the heath. But why is his return so significant, especially when focusing on the quote in Book Fourth, "If you had never returned to your native place, Clym, what a blessing it would have been for you!" Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Teagan Connelly
Hi Teagan, I also had a hard time remaining focused throughout the course of the book! However, I find it interesting that you mention the description of the heath in the very beginning as being almost personified. I agree with this idea and would like to mention that this first chapter was, in fact, my favorite part of the book! I loved how mesmerizing he made the Heath seem and how unchanging it was. The Heath was clearly an important aspect of the book to the author as he took so much time to discuss the meaning of it, and the feelings it brought to those whom visited. I believe this may have also been a point for the author in which he hoped to touch the reader and get them to think of a place so unchanging and memorable, with the same grace and beauty of the Heath.
DeleteAs for your question about the title of the novel I am not quite sure I could answer that for sure as there were so many points that required me to reread and analyze what I had just read. However, my only comment would have to be relating back to the importance of the Heath. This may be why the author took so long to explain the setting, he wanted you to know from the beginning just how much a place like this never changes. It holds all memories and never forgets anything of the past.
Amanda Gibbs
Hi Teagan and Mandy,
DeleteI agree that the book was pretty slow for me. It took me a while to get into it. The quote you mentioned above had also stood out to me. Clym returning had a major effect on everyone. After saying that Eustacia also adds, “It has altered the destinies of...” She believes that because Clym has returned, many lives are going to change.
I also believe that the description of the heath in the beginning emphasizes the importance of it. It’s a vital part of the story and is like it is it’s own character. The description allows the reader to picture and feel connected to it. I thoroughly enjoyed this section, like Mandy did, since it set me up for the rest of the story to come.
-Kaelyn Perkins
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI cannot help but make a connection between this novel and Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet." Even though the tangle of lovers in "The Return of the Native" makes for a much more complicated and convoluted plot with far more to keep track of, the basic Eustacia - Wildeve relationship is somewhat similar to Romeo and Juliet's situation. Though obviously it is different in the regard that Eustacia and Wildeve were both married to other people, the two still "snuck around" and saw each other in a way despite society's expectations for them as spouses to their individual "lovers."
But the thing I think is most eerie about the similarity is the dramatic way that the two died together. Although Romeo committed suicide (if I'm remembering correctly) and Wildeve died in an attempt to save Eustacia, they were still together when it happened and it's the perfect testimony of their unconditional, deep love.
This may be far-fetched, but it's just a thought I had after reading. Feel free to disagree with me.
- Josh Quimby
Hey Josh,
DeleteThat thought definitely came across my head as I was reading. Even though Wildeve and Eustacia were with different people at different points in the story, they always seemed to find themselves yearning for each other's personality, despite rejecting it when they had the chance. To me, both of them sort of have mischievous and devious personalities and see that about one another, but it's never blatantly made clear. Wildeve convinced himself that Thomasin was better, forcing Eustacia to do the same with Clym. Ultimately, this would of course not work out. Both of their deaths are symbolic in a way because whenever they tried to get away from each other, somehow or someway they would cross paths again. The love triangle in this book definitely makes sense because without a doubt, you had to know sooner or later these two would be back together.
-James Heaney
Hi Josh and James!
DeleteI definitely agree with both of you. I think the death of both characters in the end related to Romeo and Juliet in some ways. They each went away from societal expectations to 'canoodle' with someone other than their spouse, just like the two star crossed lovers strayed from societies expectations when they fell in love amidst a family grudge. Both characters felt 'lost' in one way or another, and saw death as a last resort. Both “Romeo and Juliet” and “Return of the Native”, as well as “Hedda Gabler”, ended in tragedy.
I also somewhat related "Return of the Native" to another Shakespeare play, "A Midsummer Night's Dream". At first it was mainly just because there was the 'tangle of lovers' as Josh said. Then as I evaluated it a bit more, I noticed that the characters were very similar too. Each of them wanted to escape their old, boring lives, and go somewhere that almost gave them meaning. I found it very interesting how similar Hardy and Shakespeare were in writing.
Teagan Connelly
Hello again,
ReplyDeleteDo any of you think that Eustacia and Wildeve's approach to their feelings for each other was handled appropriately? I personally think that rather than being unfaithful to their respective spouses, the two should have potentially had a conversation with each other as well as one with their current "loves." I understand that times were different an that divorce was a herecy of sorts, but the way that Eustacia and Wildeve were not open with Clym and Thomasin seems morally wrong to me. It's basically cheating, as the two saw each other on a few occasions behind their spouse's backs.
It can just be a bit hard to sympathize for the two, as even though of course someone unhappy with a relationship should find a way out, I don't think the appropriate way is through cheating and unfaithful acts.
- Josh Quimby
Hi Josh,
DeleteI agree with your point as I also thought that it was very hard to sympathize for these two. Love should be defined as being completely devoted to ones spouse, Eustacia and Wildeve's approach broke the confines of that, as they kept secrets from the people that had already pledged themselves to. If you placed yourself in these characters shoes the respectable thing to do would be to leave the relationship you are unhappy with, to then start something new. I'm sure this many of you may have experienced something of this nature in your lives. I'm curious to hear what y'all have to say.
-Luis Gonzalez
Hey Josh and Luis,
DeleteI agree with Luis that they mishandled their romantic lives. But at the same time, it's not as if they didn't love each other solely at one point. It seemed to me that their love for each other through affairs only grew as they were bound by marriage. I can vouch for saying that you can't commit to a relationship, especially marriage at our ages. we're simply too immature for the responsibilities. I definitely am not ready to marry someone at my current age. Eustacia and Wildeve may have only been interested in marriage for the thrills, rather than actually finding a partner that they want to spend their lives with, and raise a family with.
Hi class,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading "The Return of the Native", I had to ask myself: why did the author choose to write about a young, strong female character? Thomas Hardy's work was extremely revolutionary for his time period. Not only is his work relevant to today, but it will most likely continue to be a timeless piece.
I read the biography about Thomas Hardy and although it was short and to the point, I did a find a little bit about who he was as a person. I wanted to look at his life and see if "The Return of the Native" was a reflection of it. What I found about him was very interesting, considering that his main character in the novel was a young, female character. In the biography at the beginning pages of the novel, we found out that he attended church and thought about becoming a minister. At this time, Thomas was very young (in his twenties) and it was a very mainstream thing to do. What set him apart from the majority of the people who attended church, which was most likely everyone back then, was that he believed in the theory of evolution. Although this might sound obscure, I believe that he was a little bit ahead of his time for thinking that. Now we start to see a parallel between his life and his writing.
I relate Thomas Hardy to Eustacia because they both were ahead of their time. Hardy could have been treated poorly for his beliefs just like Eustacia is treated for being unlike her peers. Knowing that Eustacia wanted to leave Edgon Heath and move to Paris, Hardy may have drempt of doing a similar thing. The connection between Thomas and his main character in the novel is apparent.
Although there are connections between Eustacia and Thomas Hardy, writing about a strong female character in the late 1800's was a not a common thing to do. Women were basically treated as property, so why would anyone write about them back then? Does anyone have any ideas why Thomas Hardy would write Eustaica the way he did?
Hi Jenna,
DeleteI agree that Thomas Hardy and Eustacia share the characteristic of being misplaced in time. I think that Thomas wanted to express himself, and the only way he could do that was through Eustacia. He couldn't just come out and express his feelings as he may be seen as an outcast in his community. But by writing this book and creating the character of Eustacia he is able to release his feelings while coming across as still somewhat acceptable in society. I believe he made Eustacia a women to distant this character from himself. These are just my initial thoughts and I would love to hear everyone else's opinions.
-Luis Gonzalez
Hey everybody,
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued as to how Thomas Hardy decided to organize his story, as he divided the novel into 6 big "books". Each book told sort of a different story, and allowed Hardy to change what direction he wanted to go with the plot and characters. However, I was wondering how everyone thought Hardy's structure effected the readability of the book?
-Luis Gonzalez
Hi Luis,
DeleteI agree that the structure Hardy employs is interesting, especially by standards of modern literature. I also think there is a practical reason behind this, one that has much to do with readability.
Depending on which copy of the book you have (Penguin Classics for me), you may find a "General Editor's Preface" before the beginning of the novel itself. In this preface, the editor gives some crucial historical perspective on how the novel was originally published. To paraphrase, Return of the Native was originally published in three volumes, in serial (meaning that the novel was broken into parts and published at regular intervals in a periodical). While today written serial publications are virtually dead, they used to be a popular medium.
What does this have to do with the "book" format, considering the novel was published in three, not six parts? By breaking the book into separate stories, I believe Hardy was adapting his relatively linear narrative to the medium of publication used. Consider this (and ignore streaming services for a minute): TV show series wouldn't do well if each episode's plot was to blend into the next. Since viewers must wait between episodes, each episode needs to progress the plot while still having a "mini-plot" of its own.
It works the same way with serials. Since the original readers had to wait between volumes, Hardy couldn't afford to confuse them by jumping in right where he left off.
Why he chose to use six books but only publish in three volumes escapes me.
-Ben Free
Salutations fellow earthlings Ben and Luis,
DeleteAfter reading your response Ben, I could not agree more. Your logical deductions about the timing of each volume's release are superb. After some research of my own, I discovered that there were not one, not two, but four different versions of the book. One of them came in installations in a magazine, one had three volumes, another one volume, and the last came with a preface in a collection of Hardy's other works. After learning about the convoluted serialization and publication story of "Return of the Native", I found myself looking at the text in new way. Who knew that a piece of text could be interpreted and printed in such a variety of ways?
What do you all think about this bit of information? Does it change your perspective on the text?
As always, I wish you all the best of luck on Wednesday,
Ryaan Shaikh
Hey Ryaan,
DeleteAfter reading your comment I believe that it does change my perspective on the text. I feel like if I was to really understand "The Return of the Native", it's almost forced that I would have to read all the versions as to cover the purpose behind this novel. It's not motivating that there are so many versions of this book as it makes it seem like the one version I have isn't telling it all.
- Hamzah Hassan
DeleteHi everyone,
ReplyDeleteI noticed the apparent concept of superstition in the novel, and I was wondering how it may relate to other works. Eustacia's death was tied to this idea, as it came about due to a superstition that witches can't float. Also, Susan Nunsuch and other locals believed her to be a witch, and did many cruel things in attempt to prove it. Superstition exists in many classic works we have studied, such as The Crucible, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and A Midsummer Night's Dream. Why is this factor common in literature? What does it prove about human nature, and how fear can drive people to do drastic things? I noticed this theme and i'm eager to hear everyone's thoughts on it.
-Kaitlyn Herbst
Hello Ms. Herbst,
DeleteI admit I was not very happy when reading this novel that the concept of witchcraft was being brought up once again. However, it did help me relate it to other books, most specifically, The Crucible. They were very similar as both Abigail and Eustacia are involved in ruining marriages. As to why he included witchcraft, I looked up his background and found some interesting things. On a Gettysburg website dedicated to Thomas Hardy, it mentioned, "As a child, Thomas Hardy heard various stories of supernatural occurrences from the family servants, rustics from the village, and his own mother who believed she once saw a ghost. Thus, Hardy learned to believe in the supernatural and to accept the superstitious ways of the rustic people. Specifically, Hardy incorporated aspects of superstition and witchcraft into his writings. Such elements provide the reader with an understanding of how Hardy perceived his world."
Hardy believed in ghosts and witches, and wanted to portray his beliefs into his writing.
“Hardy's World - All Things Thomas Hardy.” Gettysburg College, www.gettysburg.edu/academics/english/hardy/contexts/superstition-and-witches-in-hardys-world.dot.
Kaitlyn,
DeleteI, too, noticed the recurring concept of witchcraft and superstition as I read this novel. It is touched on quite a bit with Christian Cantle's character, but I was more interested in Susan Nonsuch's involvement. To me, she portrays why this is such a common theme in literature perfectly. Susan accuses Eustacia of being a witch because she is so different from the rest of the people in Egdon Heath. Eustacia is a very passionate and sexual, outspoken, and doesn't try to fit into life in the Heath, but wishes to escape from it. So, out of fear or maybe even a bit of jealousy, Susan stabs Eustacia with a needle (which reminded me of The Crucible when Abigail stabs herself with the needle to frame Elizabeth Proctor for witchcraft) and practices voodoo in an attempt to bring down Eustacia. As seen in The Crucible and this novel, witchcraft is common in literature as it is a way for characters to act on hateful, selfish desires with impunity as it is technically done in the name of God.
-Eva Riggott
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteClym is first portrayed as someone who does not always live life to the fullest and is shown to be a generally morose character. But throughout the course of the third book, he is shown to be quite happy with the way his life has turned once returning to the heath. He develops a love for his old home that brings out an entirely different side and, someone who used to not be the happiest even as a diamond merchant, is truly content with doing manual labor and preparing himself to become a school teacher. Up until the beginning of the fourth book, this simpler life really suits this character and shows that maybe his lack of happiness in life was from the stress of trying to get an extravagant life and not having a simple, peaceful life.
-Nick Bezzina
Hey class,
ReplyDeleteI was curious as to know why Hardy picked Eustacia as the name for Eustacia Vye. With a simple Google search, I found out that Eustacia has a Latin meaning of "Productive". I think she was productive, because at her young age she pursued her goal to leave Heath by any means and didn't wasting her life staying in Heath. She pursued this dream of leaving until her unfortunate demise. Do you believe Eustacia was a productive girl? I am curious to hear your opinions.
Enjoy what's left of summer,
Hamzah Hassan
Hi Hamzah!
DeleteI thought your question and opinion was very interesting so I thought I would contribute. I can see how you believe that Eustacia lives up to her name because in her short life she does many things and keeps herself occupied but I don't believe she could be seen as productive. All of the new adventures she places herself in keeps her moving in a circle, if anything I would describe her as a procrastinator. She thinks she loves Damon but then gets caught up with Clym, she hates the Heath but can't seem to stay away, even once she officially leaves. I feel she is a very young character and has many years to live up to the possibility of her name but isn't quite there yet.
Jillian Fiddler
Hello!
DeleteI would like to say that I find I have to agree with Jillian, I don't really see her as being productive. While she did go to many lengths to find a way out of Egdon Heath, it was always at someone else's expense. When Venn offered her a job to eventually get her to her dream she refused. It would've been simple work, but Eustacia's pride wouldn't allow her to actually work towards her goal. She was mostly interested in using Clym as a means of escape from the Heath. She then later planned to use Damon and his riches to escape.
Another point I would like to make, is that throughout the novel Eustacia is shown as spending her free-time (which she has plenty of) wandering the heath idly. She is shown as more of a dreamer than a doer, and rarely, do we read about Eustacia doing any work herself. So in this way Eustacia's name could be seen as ironic.
Lydia Muse
Hi,
DeleteI also have to say that I agree with Jillian. I found it very interesting that Eustacia's name meant productive because she is trying to be productive but I do not believe she is. She keeps herself busy but nothing really has a good end. When she was able to achieve her dream, her pride would not let her. I think this a good example because it shows that Eustacia is keeping herself busy but she will not allow herself to reach her end goal. Using this example I believe that her name is ironic because she tries to be productive but things never seem to go her way and she never truly achieve's her goals.
Hey guys,
DeleteThank you for your wonderful responses. It really changed my stance on this matter. That's what I love about this blog. At first I did believe she was productive, but now looking back it was mostly just busy work after all. If she was truly productive and wanted to meet her goal of leaving, she wouldn't have held off on opportunities due to her societal pride. It was definitely used for ironic purposes as you have all mentioned.
See you tomorrow!
- Hamzah Hassan
Hi Meghan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Bonnie said about how both Clym and Diggory could be interpreted as the "Native". Clym takes more of a role in the plot than Diggory, because he is caught in the middle of the scandal. With Clym at such position, any decision he makes can greatly alter the plot. Diggory takes more of a passive role in the plot by trying to fix the problems the scandal has caused without getting in the middle of it all. Even though both Clym and Diggory could be the native, I have to lean towards Clym. It didn't occur to me until Bonnie said it, but if Clym hadn't returned to the heath, the whole story would be very different. This, and the fact that Clym was born in the heath and is returning there later in his life, makes me believe that the Clym Yeobright is indeed the "Native". I think Thomas Hardy intended for the reader to interpret the story in their own way, and let the reader chose for themselves who they thought the native was.
-Andrew Lavertu
Hi Everyone!
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the novel I coudn't help but notice the imagery of the bonfire that cropped up on multiple occasions. It almost always came up when Eustacia was trying to communicate with Wildeve which got me thinking about what the fire could symbolize. My first thought was a rather literal interpretation that the fire could represent their burning love and desire for each other. The two always seemed to act on there emotions when they were around each other and would act in rash ways. An example of that type of behavior was when the two decided to run away from the Heath. There didn't seem to be much planning put into that journey and unfortunately the results were tragic. That observation led me to my other interpretation of the symbol that it meant danger. Fire usually carries a connotation of destruction, and the relationship between Wildeve and Eustacia did indeed cause destruction. The two were able to destroy the marriages that they were each a part of, and the meeting of Wildeve and Eustacia that fateful morning in a way led to the death of Mrs. Yeobright.
I am curious to know if anyone else had different interpretations of what the bonfires symbolized.
Hi Anna!
DeleteWhen I was reading I also realized the recurrence of bonfires throughout the story. At first I didn't really think of the significance of the bonfires, but as I read more, I realized that the bonfires occurred when Eustacia and Wildeve were together. I interpreted the bonfires being Eustacia and Wildeve's "secret signal" I think the author wanted the reader to realize that the bonfires have a much deeper meaning than just being a source of light. It could just be a coincidence but I think the reason why the bonfires were brought up so much in the story was to represent all the secret meetings Eustacia and Wildeve had. More literally, bonfires represent warmth and light. The bonfires always took place when people were together. Maybe the bonfires can also represent the idea of bringing people together. The bonfires in the story are definitely a big symbol and help to identify when Eustacia and Wildeve are meeting each other.
Hello Anna,
DeleteI had not thought much of the bonfires until you had pointed them out. I think the fires symbolize more of a destructive feeling in the story. Both Eustacia and Wildeve destroyed their lives trying to get to be together. Another thought I had was rebirth. This came to mind as I thought how a phoenix is reborn through the ashes of a fire. This could symbolize how they were trying to start a new life by running away from their problems. This theory is a bit of a stretch but I thought it might work. Overall, I agree with Anna and think the flames mostly symbolize the destruction that Eustacia and Wildeve caused.
-Andrew Lavertu
Hello everybody,
DeleteAs I was scrolling through the comments I noticed this last one about the reoccurring bonfire that showed up several times. As I read along the book I didn't really put much thought into what the meaning of it could be but when I read the comment i found there was a deeper meaning. I do agree with how the fire could have the meaning of destruction and how the relationship between Eustacia and Wildeve is a very destructive one at that. Along with that I agree with Andrew's statement about the Phoenix and how the two characters tried to start new lives for themselves together.
Hello everyone
DeleteI too agree with Andrew's point on both Eustacia and Wildeve and the parallel between the imagery of fires being used to send signals and both characters starting a new because in the end its what those fires did that led them to burn down their old lives and rebirth them similar to a phoenix.What i found interesting about Anna's point is how she brought up the point of bonfires's representing warmth within the story. I do think that to be true but i also believe the image can be interpreted negatively, being that fires are known to burn and destroy. Whats interesting is how these two characters somewhat mix those two meanings since they used the fires to "burn and destroy" what they had before and bring them new "warmth and comfort" afterward."
-Nathan Lentocha
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing the play I realized how important and significant the beginning of the novel is. While it may be very boring the first chapters are really important in the development of the plot in the story. The beginning chapters help the reader understand the thoughts of the characters and how they feel towards the heath. Also, the characters feelings toward the heath help make sense of characters motivations and thoughts. For example, Eustacia's desire for love (love that isn't pure) can be connected back to the fact that Eustacia is extremely bored of the heath and that she would find someone different if there where other "good" men around like Damon. In conclusion, the beginning chapters were boring, but helped us as readers understand the decisions of the character.
-Dillon Castro
DeleteHey everyone!
ReplyDeleteI couldn't help but think that the beginning of this novel was a slow and dry start. As many of you have already mentioned, Thomas Hardy is not afraid of really going into depth and detail. Once I got further into the novel, I realized the importance of the long initial narrative about Egdon Heath. The natural, wild, and undesirable conditions of the terrain in the heath seem to mirror the events that transpired going forward. The main four lovers in this novel were unapologetically human, letting their emotion and attraction to take over almost any and all logic. Additionally to this resemblance, the characters have strong feelings about their surroundings, such as Eustacia, feeling completely out of touch and desiring to escape, and Clym, who is so passionate about his homeland. Not to mention, the conditions of the heath are, ultimately, the demise of Mrs. Yeobright, Damon, and Eustacia. For these reasons, despite the sometimes monotonous description, I now appreciate the initial portion discussing Egdon Heath. I would love to hear your opinions regarding the heath and what it means to you all in context of the story.
Hey guys,
DeleteI personally found this book to be the more boring of the two. Although it did eventually pick up, I found myself frustrated throughout multiple points of it. As Kaitlyn mentioned, Hardy kind of drags on constantly, and it really takes a lot of effort to push through. In the beginning, he goes into great detail about the Egdon Heath alone, which was probably the most boring introduction to the novel one possibly could have had. For this reason, no offense Kaitlyn, but I disagree. I think that the description of Egdon Heath could have been much more simplified, while still getting the endpoint across that Egdon Heath is a rather harsh place to live in, as proven by
Also, not sure if anybody can relate to this, but the whole story kind of reminds me of a soap opera. Everything is dragged out by Hardy, just as soap operas are drawn out for literally like 60 seasons. Additionally, the characters are all similar to those of a soap opera, revolving around each other in countless occasions, not sure who to "choose" as the lover. The plot revolves around the relationships with those involved, which is why for the most part, I got really tired of this book and was relieved when I finished it(no offense Mr. Mac)
Not quite sure how I accidentally deleted the rest of my end sentence in my first paragraph, but pretty sure I meant to say "as proven by the deaths in the drownings of Damon and Eustacia, and even Mrs. Yeobright to a certain extent." (or something along those lines)
DeleteHey Kaitlyn and Lucas,
DeleteI totally agree with what both of you are saying, I also struggled with this book. Everyone has their preferences, but for me when I read I like it when the author gets right to the point. When an author drags on I tend to lose interest. While not the most enjoyable to read at times, I do understand why the author made the decision to do this, to truly develop the characters so the reader is left with no questions. Lucas when you said the book reminded you of soap operas I laughed because I think that is the perfect comparison. While this was not my favorite book to read, I would say my favorite part are the characters, all with interesting and unique characteristics. However as far as the plot went, I was not always exactly thrilled with it.
- Liz DeLoreto
This book made me really sad. I could see how many mistakes Eustacia makes and how hard she tries to get things right. And how if things had happened slightly differently, she might have lived a happy life. Eustacia could have had a lot of things. But that just wasn’t what Hardy wanted for her character I guess. I love how vivid Eustacia and the other characters are in this book. Not just Clym and Wildeve but Clym’s mother, Eustacia’s grandfather, and the other townspeople. I wanted Eustacia to be better than she was. I wanted her to use her mind and passion to teach, or write, or do good things for others. But again, this isn’t the character she was written to be.
ReplyDeleteHi Gabby,
DeleteI while I do agree with most of what you had to say, I do pity Eustacia because of how out of place she felt while in the heath. Most of the time she was isolated and alone both physically in her house and emotionally from the town. I also felt as though she had some bad luck and tragedies happen to her that caused her to act out,such as her unsuccessful marriage with Clym Yeobright. However, I don't think it is acceptable to act out the way she did enough to be comparable to the devil or a satanic figure. Yet I do believe this was the author's intent, as you stated, you wished better for her as I do I. But I think the author purposely did the opposite of what reader would want to keep them more invested.
- Liz DeLoreto
Hey Gabby,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in the fact that Eustacia had made many mistakes and if things had gone a little differently she could have been happier. However, I think that Eustacia brought a lot of this on herself and attributed to her unhappiness. Eustacia is blinded by her longing for Paris when she falls for Clym, while Clym blinds himself to Eustacia's real personality and desires. Meanwhile, both Damon and Eustacia seem bored by the idea of happy, conflict-free love. She can't seem to pick who she wants due to this conflict inside her mind.
I do agree though that I would've liked to see at least some things work out for her. I felt pity that Eustacia was given such a tragic death and how she was very close to her dream but fell short.
- Kevin Shorey
I found it interesting that the subject of Holden Caulfield was brought up by Mr. Mac because similar to “A Catcher in the Rye” there is a certain level of ambiguity in the text where the narrator can never fully be trusted. For example, each characters perception of the heath stems from a different perspective, and even the characters themselves leave the reader with a certain level of doubt about their intentions and who they are as a character.
ReplyDeleteJoshua Vicente