As far as I can tell, almost every literary reference to Hardy’s rustic characters (including our discussion question #3) identifies them as a Greek chorus, i.e.: “They are observers, but deeply interested observers, of all that goes on around them. They pass shrewd comments on character and action; they are aids to understanding. They tell of many things that have happened off the stage, but the knowledge of which is necessary for a proper understanding of the story. By their timely remarks they serve to reveal the real significance of all that is taking place, or the real motives of the characters concerned.” https://neoenglish.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2010/12/11/hardys-presentation-of-rustic-life/
At the same time, they add levity to an often dark story (as Shakespeare’s minor characters often do).
I liked literary critic Ernest Baker’s view of rustic characters vs. lead characters: "They are as eternal as the woods and fields and heaths; whereas the different lovers, the weak or faithless women, the anguished victims of despair, are symbols of a present phase of disturbance, restlessness and maladjustment.”
I’m still considering Discussion Question #1 - “mere setting, or a symbol, or as a being in its own right.” How does environment serve as an integral part of this novel?”
I’ve always read this and other Hardy novels as absolutely intertwined with the location and setting, time period and greater environment. Maybe I just have no imagination but I can’t place this plot, even with some modifications, in a different world. With Hardy, my question has always been one of chicken or egg. Did the story grow out of his Dorset background or did he imagine the plot as an abstraction, then place it in a familiar setting? I can’t separate the two. (Rather, if there are any Francophiles out there, like placing Proust’s Remembrances outside France!)
Thanks for all the links to the visual and cinematic aspects of Hardy. Absolutely makes sense to me from my first readings almost 40 years ago - wish I’d thought to do the scholarship!
I’d love to hear any dissenting thoughts on importance of setting.
Here’s my personal beef with Thomas Hardy: I wearied of his generalizations about women (sometimes made in a weak attempt to be humorous). To be fair, I know that in many ways, Bathsheba is far ahead of her time, and I very much appreciated those aspects of her character. I loved how Hardy made her a competent businesswoman, a fearless protector of her home and property, and a traveler who goes where she wants, whenever she wants, without feeling encumbered by social mores.
Still, her strengths weren’t enough to completely offset Hardy’s many little sexist digs. I realize that his opinions reflect the thinking of the times; even so, they sometimes made me wince. For example:
“’It was not exactly the fault of the hut,’ she observed in a tone which showed her to be that novelty among women—one who finished a thought before beginning the sentence which was to convey it” (p. 14).
“Women are never tired of bewailing man’s fickleness in love, but they only seem to snub his constancy” (p. 125).
“Strange to say of a woman in full bloom and vigor, she always allowed her interlocutors to finish their statements before rejoining with hers” (p.69).
“There are occasions when girls like Bathsheba will put up with a great deal of unconventional behaviour. When they want to be praised, which is often, when they want to be mastered, which is sometimes; and when they want no nonsense, which is seldom” (p. 129).
“Bathsheba’s feeling was always to some extent dependent upon her whim, as is the case with many other women” (p. 306).
I also winced at Hardy’s comments about women, Mary, but my main beef with him was that he didn’t seem to have a lot of empathy for his characters. To me, it was as though he was examining them like bugs under a microscope.
The absurd incidents scattered through the book made me uncomfortable also. These incidents made some of the characters seem like clowns or silly dupes. I mentioned some of these incidents in a previous post (the near-suffocation, the gargoyle downspout, Troy spying on Bathsheba through slits he cut in the circus tent). Another of the incidents was the pursuit of the “horse thief” who turned out to be Bathsheba.
I also winced on occasion at Hardy’s jabs - though I realize I look at them through 21st century eyes. I also think that some of the inconsistency in Bathsheba’s words and actions reflect the same bias. I notice it when Bathsheba talks with Liddy and changes what she says and does in the blink of an eye.
I recognized the rustics as a Greek chorus immediately and as such enjoyed them. They can seem a digression, but with a deeper look they actually aren’t.
(I’m not finished yet, but look forward to a happy ending ahead.)
I wasn’t highly bothered by the sexist remarks - I think I just ignored them as coming out of another century. I’m beginning to think I may want to re-visit this. Putting some of that implied commentary and facts of Hardy’s life together, I think the suggestion that Hardy’s personal opinions of women may be less than flattering has merit.
What struck me is the contrast between the position of a female character like Bathsheba (relatively powerful) and the position of other females like Fanny (relatively powerless). Was this Hardy’s attempt at social commentary on sexism and classism?
I think Hardy was both ahead of his time and of his time. Because he actually admits that sex is important (though he has to write about it obliquely) and because he allows his female characters a lot of autonomy, I think we become extra disappointed when he makes particularly sexist assumptions.
That said I laughed out loud at, " “There are occasions when girls like Bathsheba will put up with a great deal of unconventional behaviour. When they want to be praised, which is often, when they want to be mastered, which is sometimes; and when they want no nonsense, which is seldom.”
One of the things that I had completely forgotten is that Hardy can be funny. This struck me as funny enough to mark:
“It may have been observed that there is no regulal path for getting out of love as there is for getting in. Some people look upon marriage as a short cut that way, but it has been known to fail.” (chapter 5)
Oh and back to Mary’s comment about mirrors, I had marked, “Boldwood had for the first time been awakened to woman’s privileges in tergiversation even when it involves another person’s possible blight. That Bathsheba was a firm and positive girl, far less inconsequent than her fellows, had been the very lung of his hope; for he had held that these qualities would lead her to adhere to a straight course for consistency’s sake, and accept him, though her fancy might not flood him with the iridescent hues of uncritical love. But the argument now came back as sorry gleams from a broken mirror. The discovery was no less a scourge than a surprise.”
I’d actually marked that passage to look up the word tergiversation - Hardy used quite a few words I have never seen before! (Definition of TERGIVERSATION. 1. : evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement : equivocation. 2. : desertion of a cause, position, party, or faith.)
While I think the landscape is very important to Hardy, I never see it as a symbol or being in its own right. I do think he sees country folk as more authentic than city folk, and probably the same with the landscape. Interesting for someone who originally trained as an architect.
I’m not sure that someone like Hardy would even have recognized what sexism or classism were. Attitudes of differences between the sexes and the classes were pretty firmly entrenched in the society he was part of.
Bathsheba’s back and forth between being an independent woman and weeping willow was a big part of my roller coaster ride with this book. I understand she was struggling to be independent when women weren’t independent, but her extremes were too much for me.
One thing about reading a classic is that there is little that can be said that hasn’t been said before – it’s more a question of tracking down earlier analyses. I found the essay, “Narrative, Gender and Power in Far From the Madding Crowd” online:
Parts of it are a little “too too” academic for my tastes. I mean, when Bathsheba runs away and hides in a fern brake, is it really “fully emblematic of a return to the womb”? Hmmmm. Not so sure about that. But if you skim the essay, you’ll find lots of interesting tidbits. For example:
Hardy’s three main male characters are, perhaps, representative of three different sides of Hardy? I would assume that he’d have identified with the protagonist, Gabriel Oak. But maybe the real Hardy is a combination of the three men. I have ordered the biographies suggested by Momofadult, and need to look at the letters of his wives. Thank you, btw, Mathmom (I wish that book wasn’t so pricey)!
Although the happy ending came in a rush after the bulk of the tragedy of the one-sided Boldwood affair or the lusty Troy marriage, I appreciated Hardy recognizing the true value of Bathsheba and Gabriel’s friendship in their love. At the end of Chapter 56, I marked this section:
The drowning floods remind me of the awful scene with the gargoyle spewing water on Troy’s work at Fanny’s grave ).
Enjoying the discussion. Somehow November / thanksgiving hosting distracted me from reading this month. December crept up WAY too fast ( for all of you, too, I’m sure )
^ Me, too. I finished the night before discussion began. Something about the change in the weather or the shortened days just made me feel lethargic for most of November.
).