Bess of the B'Urpy-feels
Heh heh - me is clever. Yes indeedy.
As you may have guessed, I finished reading Tess of the D'Urbervilles today, and you will gain some understanding of my feelings when I say that spam e-mail is marginally less dislikable than that book. My - dear - God. When you see "orbs" used as a synonym for "eyes" and an entire paragraph taken just to say "Alec paid attention to her because she had big boobs," that's a good cue to put down the book in question and run away screaming. Alas, this was a book I had to read for English class (the first book this year I haven't liked), so I had no choice but to slog through to the dank, dreary end. And yes, it was a dank, dreary end, because a) this is a depressing Victorian-era book and b) all the people in it are stupid. I'm not saying this simply because I disliked them; it's true. It is especially true of Tess, the supposed heroine. Can you call a person who does not willingly make any decisions on her own and gets victimized throughout the entire book a heroine? Let's say protagonist. God, but that girl is DIM! She isn't even supposed to be dim; Hardy mentions several times that she got good grades in school and could have been a teacher. But nowhere in the book do you see any real evidence of Tess's intelligence. Let's see - she goes on a ride alone with a guy she knows has intentions upon her person (you can't really call what happens then her fault, but it was still a dumb move), she gives up all of her independence and sense of self for a husband who decides he can't love her the day they're married because of aforementioned indiscretion, she does all kinds of backbreaking farm labor when she could be living with her in-laws, she goes off with the ill-intentioned person because she thinks her husband isn't coming back, and all through the book, when one little outburst, complaint, or explanation could have saved her a huge amount of grief and made her happy, she does NOTHING. She just lets it all happen to her, until she finally gets executed for murder and the book is mercifully over. And you know what? She got JUST what she deserved. Meekness, humility, and self-sacrifice is all very well to a point, but Tess was well on the other side of that point, and her being such a stupid little victim drove me INSANE. As a creator of several abused little uke-boys, I might sound a bit hypocritical, but trust me, Richi and Josh and any other victims of mine are nothing like Tess. You like them and care about them because they're interesting, and the reason they're interesting is that they're people, real people with thoughts and personalities and quirks and talents who can move beyond their problems, and not dim little paper dolls. Tess is the latter. It's impossible to care about her because there is no her to care about; she just does and thinks exactly what her husband does, even if he's wrong (as he often is) or cruel (he's that, too). Maybe you think that's romantic, but get your head out of the clouds, Bess. No human being is perfect, no human being was perfect, and I doubt there ever will be a perfect human being (some people, like the Dalai Lama, come pretty close, but they're still not perfect). And even if they were perfect, there's no reason to completely abnegate your self into theirs. You are a living, breathing, thinking, feeling person, with your own thoughts and dreams and opinions, and you are entitled to those thoughts and dreams and opinions and to your own happiness. (Of course, maybe your happiness comes from raping little boys or torturing people or killing loads of people at one go, in which case you should turn yourself into the proper authorities now, be executed, and try harder in your next life. There are limits.) And maybe you think it's brave of Tess, too, that she goes and does all that back-breaking labor to support herself, when actually the braver and more sensible thing to do would be to go to her in-laws and seek help from them. They ARE her relations by marriage, now, and the fact that the one time she does go to try and visit the Clares, she gets put off by one overheard conversation, only goes to show what a weak little twit she is. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the only thing she did right the entire novel was kill Alec, and I only admit that because I believe the best way to deal with rapists is summary execution.
And don't think for a minute that I get all worked up like this because the book is actually very well-written and I care about the characters. Far, far from it. I just get really pissed at stupid passivity in any form. I do have a question, though. Why the HELL do we read a book like this in school? I mean, what are we supposed to learn from it? How to use annoying synonyms? How to take an entire paragraph to express one simple concept? How to be a victim like Tess? My father made the point that it's supposed to be a picture of the plight of women in Victorian times, and you're supposed to feel sympathy for Tess. This would be a valid argument if a) the book wasn't written so poorly that by the time you figure out what Hardy is saying, you don't care anymore, and b) Tess was, you know, like, an actual character or person you could feel sorry for. I did feel a bit bad for her when she got raped, but that's an occurence hardly confined to Victorian times, and as for the rest of it - she could have DONE something. She didn't HAVE to give up her entire self the way she did.
There's nothing all that nice to say about any of the other characters, either. You've probably guessed my feelings about Alec, and as for her husband, Angel Clare, he was a jerk. But most of the problems I had with the book concerned Tess. For at least three-quarters of the novel I was actively rooting for her to end her self-induced misery and tormented life, and for someone generally disposed to like anyone/anything until I have concrete proof I shouldn't (and sometimes even that won't work), that's saying something. Again, why the HELL are we reading this in school? So we'll all follow Tess's good example? Get REAL, people. I thought we lived in a culture that acknowledged gender equality, or at least did its best to provide equal treatment for both sexes, but I'm beginning to doubt that. If you really need an example of the Victorian attitude towards women, pick something like The Doll's House, where Nora wised up in the end and left to get her own life.
Okay, this rant has gone on to three pages in AppleWorks. Time to do something else, like my German homework. And plug my new quiz again.
Current Mood:
A bitch, but at least an individual.
As you may have guessed, I finished reading Tess of the D'Urbervilles today, and you will gain some understanding of my feelings when I say that spam e-mail is marginally less dislikable than that book. My - dear - God. When you see "orbs" used as a synonym for "eyes" and an entire paragraph taken just to say "Alec paid attention to her because she had big boobs," that's a good cue to put down the book in question and run away screaming. Alas, this was a book I had to read for English class (the first book this year I haven't liked), so I had no choice but to slog through to the dank, dreary end. And yes, it was a dank, dreary end, because a) this is a depressing Victorian-era book and b) all the people in it are stupid. I'm not saying this simply because I disliked them; it's true. It is especially true of Tess, the supposed heroine. Can you call a person who does not willingly make any decisions on her own and gets victimized throughout the entire book a heroine? Let's say protagonist. God, but that girl is DIM! She isn't even supposed to be dim; Hardy mentions several times that she got good grades in school and could have been a teacher. But nowhere in the book do you see any real evidence of Tess's intelligence. Let's see - she goes on a ride alone with a guy she knows has intentions upon her person (you can't really call what happens then her fault, but it was still a dumb move), she gives up all of her independence and sense of self for a husband who decides he can't love her the day they're married because of aforementioned indiscretion, she does all kinds of backbreaking farm labor when she could be living with her in-laws, she goes off with the ill-intentioned person because she thinks her husband isn't coming back, and all through the book, when one little outburst, complaint, or explanation could have saved her a huge amount of grief and made her happy, she does NOTHING. She just lets it all happen to her, until she finally gets executed for murder and the book is mercifully over. And you know what? She got JUST what she deserved. Meekness, humility, and self-sacrifice is all very well to a point, but Tess was well on the other side of that point, and her being such a stupid little victim drove me INSANE. As a creator of several abused little uke-boys, I might sound a bit hypocritical, but trust me, Richi and Josh and any other victims of mine are nothing like Tess. You like them and care about them because they're interesting, and the reason they're interesting is that they're people, real people with thoughts and personalities and quirks and talents who can move beyond their problems, and not dim little paper dolls. Tess is the latter. It's impossible to care about her because there is no her to care about; she just does and thinks exactly what her husband does, even if he's wrong (as he often is) or cruel (he's that, too). Maybe you think that's romantic, but get your head out of the clouds, Bess. No human being is perfect, no human being was perfect, and I doubt there ever will be a perfect human being (some people, like the Dalai Lama, come pretty close, but they're still not perfect). And even if they were perfect, there's no reason to completely abnegate your self into theirs. You are a living, breathing, thinking, feeling person, with your own thoughts and dreams and opinions, and you are entitled to those thoughts and dreams and opinions and to your own happiness. (Of course, maybe your happiness comes from raping little boys or torturing people or killing loads of people at one go, in which case you should turn yourself into the proper authorities now, be executed, and try harder in your next life. There are limits.) And maybe you think it's brave of Tess, too, that she goes and does all that back-breaking labor to support herself, when actually the braver and more sensible thing to do would be to go to her in-laws and seek help from them. They ARE her relations by marriage, now, and the fact that the one time she does go to try and visit the Clares, she gets put off by one overheard conversation, only goes to show what a weak little twit she is. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the only thing she did right the entire novel was kill Alec, and I only admit that because I believe the best way to deal with rapists is summary execution.
And don't think for a minute that I get all worked up like this because the book is actually very well-written and I care about the characters. Far, far from it. I just get really pissed at stupid passivity in any form. I do have a question, though. Why the HELL do we read a book like this in school? I mean, what are we supposed to learn from it? How to use annoying synonyms? How to take an entire paragraph to express one simple concept? How to be a victim like Tess? My father made the point that it's supposed to be a picture of the plight of women in Victorian times, and you're supposed to feel sympathy for Tess. This would be a valid argument if a) the book wasn't written so poorly that by the time you figure out what Hardy is saying, you don't care anymore, and b) Tess was, you know, like, an actual character or person you could feel sorry for. I did feel a bit bad for her when she got raped, but that's an occurence hardly confined to Victorian times, and as for the rest of it - she could have DONE something. She didn't HAVE to give up her entire self the way she did.
There's nothing all that nice to say about any of the other characters, either. You've probably guessed my feelings about Alec, and as for her husband, Angel Clare, he was a jerk. But most of the problems I had with the book concerned Tess. For at least three-quarters of the novel I was actively rooting for her to end her self-induced misery and tormented life, and for someone generally disposed to like anyone/anything until I have concrete proof I shouldn't (and sometimes even that won't work), that's saying something. Again, why the HELL are we reading this in school? So we'll all follow Tess's good example? Get REAL, people. I thought we lived in a culture that acknowledged gender equality, or at least did its best to provide equal treatment for both sexes, but I'm beginning to doubt that. If you really need an example of the Victorian attitude towards women, pick something like The Doll's House, where Nora wised up in the end and left to get her own life.
Okay, this rant has gone on to three pages in AppleWorks. Time to do something else, like my German homework. And plug my new quiz again.
Current Mood:
A bitch, but at least an individual.