Essays in Criticism: Hardy's "Tess of D'Ubervilles"

Essays in criticism transcend merely recommending or exclaiming distaste for Hardy's novel. They instead strive to provide useful insight into the depth of the literature. The first essay I read for this selection was "Hardy's Moments of Vision" by Virginia Woolf. Woolf, herself, is a profound writer and is respected for her beliefs and views. She praises the novel for its blatant beauty and Hardy's talent which is "magnificent in achievement" (401). Her essay focuses on Hardy's skills and that although his writing appears to have short comings, it is actually a blessing. She is enthralled with his natural beauty "which are to be found in every book that he wrote" (401). The next essay I read which breaks completely away from Woolf's close reading is "Neo-Dawrinian Fate in Tess of the D'Ubervilles" by Peter R. Morton. It offers a useful reading though the inheritance theory after establishing that Hardy was a large fan of Darwinism. Morton builds his argument through assurance that Hardy liked the theory then demonstrating evidence for those beliefs in the novel. His theory states that there is intention behind his writing and plot. Morton states that Hardy's moves which appear to be mere effects of "bad luck" are instead representations of Darwinism. Morton specifically claims "accidents in Tess are raraly if ever a product of the random... but rather... outcome of the immediate narrative context of their own personalities as conditioned and limited by the forces of heredity and environment" (444). This claim that Hardy completely fashioned his novel around this theory offers a much different reading than Woolf offers who reads the piece from a complete place of artistic wonder.

In my analysis I would like to examine Virginia Woolf opinion on the topic that our class discussed this Wednesday the 13th of November. We circled around and questioned why Hardy seems to leave questions unanswered and conversations undeveloped. The most pivotal moments are often marked by a brief glossing, like the confession of Tess to Angel about her previous affair and child. The way it is written states " ... she entered on her story of her acquaintance with Alec D'Uberville and its results..." (177). Here the reader understands what is at stake for Tess as she must tell her new husband all about her past. But instead of detailing her conversation so we know who to blame how to react the text cuts to a new chapter. In addition to this circumstance, we also never really understand the murder of Alec and what her motives or triggers were. All the reader has to go off of is the brief information offered by Hardy as to how those moments occurred, leaving much to inference up to the readers themselves. Woolf see's this tactic of Hardy's as part of the beauty of the piece "We do not remember how they talked and changed and got to know each other, finely, gradually from step to step" (403). She see's it as Hardy not spending much time on character development because the beauty of the story lies elsewhere. The tragedy is in the unknown and helplessness of the reader to intervene.

Contemporary Critical Reception of "Tess of D'Ubervilles"

The contemporary critical reviews that were published following the release of the novel generally all gave rave reviews. "From The Pall Mall Gazette" is a review that commends Hardy for producing a novel that shatters all reader's expectations. It claims that "... he has never exercised it more powerfully-never, certainly, more tragically, than this..." (381). He regards that while the novel is not like the author's previous works, it is masterful in its ability to shape a rather simple plot masterfully. "From The Athenaeum" creates an argument for Tess as a sympathetic woman. It praises the novel but claims to be quite annoyed with Hardy's choice of language. The review "From The Illustrated London News" also praises the novel for breaking out of conventional and comfortable story lines by showing the truth that it is the pure-minded and narrow course girls who most often fall out of favor. "The Saturday Review" is completely unlike the previous reviews because it claims that "Mr. Hardy, it must be conceded, tells an unpleasant story in a very unpleasant way" (384). Some other reviews were also unsure about a few of his writing techniques but this review takes his criticism to another level completely distrusting it. Mostly, the reviews were positive because they were surprised by Hardy's shift in style and plot. The narrative was a risk well received.

In my analysis I would like to examine the perception of Tess by the Victorian audience. "From The Illustrated London News" spends much time giving credence to the protagonist's role in the novel and praising Hardy for his work. The review states that lives are often not defined by one moment but are the collection of moments and reactions to those. While the novel may be shocking for its honesty, its character lies in "leading him to deal with serious moral problems, will assuredly cause this book to be reprobated by numbers of well-intentioned people who have read his previous novels with complacency"(382). Tess's life is not a happy tale to follow but it does show an ironic truth that the more pure her intentions, the worse the mess is that she ends up in. The article likewise states that the novel is "founded on a recognition of the ironic truth which we all know in our hearts... that the richest kind of womanly nature... is the most liable" (383). Tess never means to loose her virtue, lie to her husband, or leave Angel for that matter but unluckily her life leads her into unfortunate circumstances. I think that the location of Stonehenge for the conclusion of the tale is most symbolic because no one know why the monument was build or for that matter how. Likewise, there is no real fault to blame other than Alec in Tess's somewhat miserable story. And even for that matter, she could have just married Alec and her life could have possibly been much different, it would have been much richer no doubt. Fate in a sense ruins Tess and it seems unanswerable, like Stonehenge, where she is arrested. Both her fate and the location of her arrest seem unanswerable. This concept of fate fits nicely into the popular style of naturalism that was prevalent during the time.

Recent Criticism of Eliot's Middlemarch

The criticism authored by Jerome Beaty titled "History by Indirection: The Era of Reform in Middlemarch" (593) goes beyond any contemporary criticism previously provided. It takes a step back to really examine the historical implications of the novel. He is interested in the way Eliot scatters history through the novel through representation and delicate mentions. She never lumps together historical information but non the less provides accurate pictures of the times, something all critics seem to agree is done masterfully. Lee R. Edwards in his piece "Women, Energy, and Middlemarch" (623) again looks at historical implications but does so through contemplation of Eliot's personal motives. The critic details their personal transcendence of understanding of the novel at first, as the tale of a heroine, but then coming to realize its true nature. It is claimed that the novel is neither comic nor tragic, just how Eliot wanted it. A line is definitely drawn in this criticism between Eliot and her work, as she works to mock and criticize the society of the time through her characters. From her own history we understand that Dorothea and Celia are nothing like her in lifestyle selections and Edwards cites her characterizations as intentional calls out. T.R. Wright takes a separate step in the criticism of the novel by examining Eliot's intentions with faith in "Middlemarch as a Religious Novel, or Life without God" (640). God in a sense is blank in the novel, because he really does make no appearance. Wright names numerous other critics who have tried to answer the question of why and he himself offers the answer. He believes that Eliot's lack of god is made up for in other areas.

I most enjoyed Beaty's conversation on historical context in the novel. Many critics in the present and in the time of Eliot, unanimously praise her ability for an accurate portrayal of human nature. She creates a web of society that accurately reflects the expectations, responsibilities, and burdens of 1829 - 1832, the dates in which Middlemarch is set. Beaty creates an argument for how the novel is not only accurate of society but also politically and globally "Few readers notice how many details from the political history of a period forty years prior to the time of composition are present" (593). They are skillfully weaved into the novel, strengthening Eliot's already amazing picture of English life. Beaty goes on to elaborate on the death of King George IV that was during the action of the novel. The characters never directly pause to not the world larger than them but there is evidence of its impacts "The major political events are forecast and have effects with no surrounding air of "momentous occasion"; they assume their natural place in the lives and actions of the characters..." (595). Had the King's death overshadowed the death of a character it would in a sense remove from the emphasis on Middlemarch characters, as they never seem to act or look outside their own world much. However, to keep the plot true, the effects of his death in the news and postings are shown. I had no idea that so much history was weaved into the novel as I read it, and like any great piece of literature, I would like to reread it with more historical knowledge.

Contemporary Reviews of Eliot's Middlemarch

Summary - 
The Contemporary Reviews featured in the Norton Critical Edition were written as reviews to the novel upon its first release. The Saturday Review titled "Middlemarch" (573) praises Eliot for a beautiful use of characterization. It then goes on to look carefully at the characters of Dorothea, Celia, and Causabon while noting flaws in Eliot's portrayals and what those flaws amount to. Sidney Colvin also wrote a review titled "Middlemarch" (575) in which pure excitement and adoration for the novel by the reviewer is shown. Words like "extraordinary" and "ripe" are used in its description  The descriptors as well as portrayal of human nature are claimed to be impeccable in taste and use. Both of these reviews respect the novel but Colvin definitely shows more enthusiasm for it than the Saturday Review who is cautious in its praise and heavy in its critique. Henry James in his essay "George Eliot's Middlemarch" (578) jumps into the conversation being more harsh than the others. He calls it a "treasure house of details, but is an indifferent whole" (578). He then goes on to describe how there is a let down in the plot of the overall text. The reviews each do a good job of respecting the novel while noting how their preferences effect their reading of the novel.

I agree most with Henry James in his agreement that Middlemarch is a great novel in its creativity, depiction, and use of literature. In his words, it is "vast, swarming, deep-colored, crowded with episodes, with vivid images, with lurking master-strokes, with brilliant passages of expression" (578). The novel does beautifully depict the world of Middlemarch and its inhabitants. However, I also side with James in his argument that there are moments of let down in the plot and unfolding of the novel. James states "Dorothea was altogether too superb a heroine to be wasted" (579). He notices how her sudden marriage and inability to truly transcend into a great heroine is a letdown. She is began with a beautiful characterization but ultimately is semi abandoned in the novel. James notes how Eliot's novel "with its abundant and massive ingredients Middlemarch ought somehow to have depicted a weightier drama" (579). It seems like each character is created beautifully without any sort of massive climax. Several characters pass away throughout the novel without any sort of large impact for the survivors and so much time is spent on a broad view, unlike Mary Barton, that the drama seems to never really speed up.

Summary, Analysis: Background to George Elliot / Middlemarch

Summary-

Mary Anne Evans wrote under the pen name George Elliot for much of her career in literature. For this blog I chose to look at several letters written by Ms. Evans to friends as well as pieces published in magazines, newspapers, and collections as well. The first one we see is titled "Letter to Sara Sophia Hennell" (519). The footnote informs us that Ms. Hennell was Evans most constant correspondent throughout her lift. It is written in a most casual tone which hints at their comfortable relationship. In this letter she lectures on the value of human expression and speech. She calls for "those who can write, let them do it as boldly as they like" (519). Again in her piece "From The Natural History of German Life"(520), Evans calls out the value of art for self expression and the betterment of the world. She claims the value of all different workers and people for the different perceptions they bring with them. This piece largely ties in with Middlemarch and her own biography. The letter "Journal, Richmond, 30 November 1858" (522) highlights the amount of biography and real world experiences in Evan's works. She highlights her debates of how much actuality to use in her works. She does base them somewhat off of her real experiences but mostly she was an active member of the society that she was seeking to critique giving it credibility. It is undeniable that Evans was a controversial and interesting woman which lends more though as to what of her personal experiences are included in her literature. She again stresses the paramount importance of sympathies for the artist in her "Letter to Charles Bray" (526). In her letter she calls into focus that if the reader is not able to feel the intent of the art, they are missing the most important elements of human experience. 

Analysis-
Evans wrote under the pen name of Elliot for several reasons. One, most likely is due to her controversial relationship with Lewes but another most likely due to her sex. As a woman, her political works would be due to greater scrutiny if published under her female name. In her essay published in The Wesminster Review "From The Natural History of German Life" she calls for an examination of the principles applied to the understanding of art. Like the characters in Middlemarch who fall prey to a bias society and the environment of Evans herself, she questions the morality of how art is interpreted. She calls into question the observations of "The landholder, the clergyman, the millowner, the mining-agent" (521) and how their views are stifled by the culture. The characters of her novel are largely middle to upper class individuals, definitely not strictly the bourgeois. She defends the validity of the lower class perception in art and society. She claims that "Art is the nearest thing to life;..." (520) claims that there is real value in understanding "the people."It seems that she makes the claim for humans dependence on conditions for development. That for true understanding, one must examine all classes and their experiences. A mode explored broadly in her novel, maybe explaining why there is such a broad cast of characters utilized in its plot. She notes this throughout her letters and works, she deeply believes in the value of sympathies from the reader to the novel for without it, the artistic value is diminished and missed by the reader.


Elliot, George. Middlemarch. 2nd ed. New York, London: W.W. Norton &, 2000. Print.

Summary and Analysis of Mary Barton "Criticism"

Summary - 
The section of Mary Barton "Criticism" is useful to understand alternative concepts of the literature. I chose to examine the criticisms "Carson's Murder and the Inadequacy of Hope in Mary Barton" (501) by John Lucas and "The Streetwalker and Urban Observations in Mary Barton" (583) by Deirdre D'Albertis. Both of these texts circle around the social issues examined in the novel of poverty and strife. Lucas presents the case that Gaskell only works against herself in the novel by murdering Carson and turning John Barton into the villain who the reader wants to pity and push against. He claims "she finds the murder necessary  because by means of it she can simplify a complexity which has become too terrific for her to accept consciously  (503). Mr. Barton, in the view of Lucas, is entered to this fate in order to ensure that Gaskell does not have to worry about his complex character any longer. D'Albertis critiques the authors portrayal of John Barton and Esther. The criticism largely focuses on the role of prostitution and social issues. The prostitution and expectations of society have a large impact on the novel and D'Albertis and how Gaskell intends to shape the way the novel is read.

Gaskell's choice in plot movement can be seen to undermine the themes of the novel. For Lucas, the murder of Carson by Mr. Barton is "damaging all that is best in her novel." He believes this because it simplifies all of the complexities that were earlier being developed in the novel. The murder turns the novel on the course of resolution and Mary's road to a relationship with Jem but most importantly, the mill owners forgiveness of his son's murderer and promise for more fair employment. D'Albertis expands on this characterization of John Barton by claiming that he was abandoned in the novel as he was pushed away from the position of main character. He, along with Esther, becomes "driven underground" (584) by Gaskell. Though the novel moves along examining women's roles, prostitution, wages, disease, and courting but then it suddenly turns to tragedy and a quick resolution. The ending is not a "happily ever after" novel but in the scheme of a "state of England" novel it does end fairly in the fairy tale nature. Mary is able to move on happily while her father and aunt suffer much more harsh fates. They are shown little sympathy in the way of creating a "nice" message and conclusion with Gaskell's intended message. The novel, according to both critics, could have been developed in a more true and gripping way through the use of John and Esther.

Gaskell, Elizabeth. Mary Barton. Ed Thomas Recchio. A Norton Critical Edition. New York:              W.W. Norton, 2008. Print.

Summary and Analysis of Several Mary Barton "Contemporary Reviews"

9 September 2013

Summary
For this blog, I chose to look at the reviews by the Manchester Literary Times in 1848, John Forster in 1848, and the British Quarterly in 1849. These reviews come merely in unison with the release of the novel in 1848 and detail the quality of the novel before the author is revealed. This timely relevance means the reviews understand the challenges of the time as well as the issues of disparity that Gaskell seeks to uncover through the novel. The Manchester Literary Times believes that while the novel is no great literary work, its honesty and ability to describe the world around it is inspiring. Forster agrees in his claim that the novel “is no bragging, or tolling of things fantastical” (Forster 367). He claims that is it through sympathy that Barton constructs a beautiful novel and like the Manchester Literary Review understands it is the plainness and ease of the literature which gives the novel literary credibility. The British Quarterly agrees with the beauty of the writing style but calls into question accuracy of the picture being portrayed. It calls into question the own faults of the poor and the depiction of all mill owners as bad men. It claims “this one sided picture” (British Quarterly 370) is inaccurate. The review really steps away from the abstract appreciation of literary technique and theme but looks instead into historical relevance and accuracy. In a sense out of this grouping, the British Quarterly represents the upperclass and plays the devil's advocate. 

Analysis

The first two reviews assume that the picture being painted of the poor is accurate. John Forster sympathizes with their plight and go as far as to claim “be satisfied with the knowledge that they are born, are wretched, and die, is certainly no longer possible” (Forster 367).  Through this statement he acknowledges that the novel has made valid claims and has highlighted plausible issues. He calls them the “dangerous classes” as acknowledges that the respectable populations carries little sympathy for the lower class and that is the value of the novel. Likewise, the Manchester Literary Times at least acknowledges the unfortunate as a “humble class” (366) and while lends little room for sympathy finds beauty in their recognition and Gaskell’s passion. Together these articles agree that Gaskell’s writing is worthy of respect for its honesty and ability to portray a set of individuals in an intimate and heart wrenching way. They believe her achievements are found in the ability to sway public opinion. However, in the opinion of The British Quarterly, the author “seems still under the influence of the very common misapprehensions entertained respecting the laboriousness of occupation in the factories” (372). This review harshly critiques and defends what is thought of as the social order and treatment of lower classes. It brings out statistics claiming that the incidents in factories are not as prevalent as supported in texts like Mary Barton. Ultimately, it is understood that the living conditions were not favorable and the world was changing through industrialism as jobs boomed and busted. These critics show the reader that the class warfare came from both sides and whether Gaskell meant to be political in nature, her writing still caused discussion. Discussion for improvements sake means this novel is a success. In addition, it is considered an estimable literary work, agreeable by all.

Gaskell, Elizabeth. Mary Barton. Ed Thomas Recchio. A Norton Critical Edition. New York:              W.W. Norton, 2008. Print.