Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

In both these novels, we initially see the results of parenting, both good and bad.
Is there any way the authors are handling situations that you might like to comment on?

The results differ, but both Molly and Tess are sent into situations that are too much for them to deal with in the beginning of the stories - although they are sent out in these situations for different reasons.

Both characters either are without a mother, or without strong guidance from a mother (we talked about this in Wuthering Heights!).

Education of the daughters was undervalued by the parents in each of these novels.

Since both authors are basically writing about family situations, I find it interesting that their thoughts seem to be similar. I think perhaps it was the culture of the time and not so much a male/female mind set. Not only do we see family in the forefront in these two authors, but others as well.

I guess because so many children did not have the benefit of both parents, or the question of alcohol consumption eliminated a parent from their responsibilities, that authors chose to explore the family unit or lack thereof in their novels.

There is the argument, too, that a good hero or heroine must be bereft of at least one parent. Look at English lit in general (I can't comment on others, Brit Lit is all I really know) from Dickens to Eliot, all of the heroes and heroines are struggling through life without the guidance of (usually) a mother.

There is also a significant difference in classes between Molly and Tess. Tess is from a poor farming family. Her father's claims to a good name are laughable. Even the vicar makes fun of him. He's making claims far above his station. And what's worse, he acts on them--through Tess.

Molly, on the other hand, is a doctor's daughter. A doctor may or may not be considered a gentleman. They deal in a business full of indignities and improprieties. And yet they did have a right to a respectable life. Dr. Gibson, however, isn't just a doctor, but THE doctor for the county's oldest and most respected family. He has connections, if tentative, and Molly very well might benefit from these. That she becomes the Squire's wife's special friend is a huge distinction (even if the Squire isn't aristocracy). Gaskell has no intention of making Molly a tool for overhanded didacticism, though. She won't be fate's victim. I think Gaskell is trying to show us what a good heart and honest intentions can accomplish.

I love Lady Harriet. She is one of my favorite supporting characters ever. I've used her to model one of my own and I find her great fun.

Interesting that Justine Waddell played both heroines. Is that coincidence or did someone plan it that way?

V.r. wrote: "There is the argument, too, that a good hero or heroine must be bereft of at least one parent. Look at English lit in general (I can't comment on others, Brit Lit is all I really know) from Dickens..."

So true....it does make for some very wonderfully tragic situations. I love Mrs Hamley...in fact I think she is my most favorite character in all Vic lit I have read. She is the mother we all would like to have I think

She is a good person. And what a blessing for Molly, too. Perhaps there is some intended irony there, too. Molly has a mother just when she needs one. Claire is provided her, but certainly not the mother figure she needs.

I love Lady Harriet, too!

I just started Tess and got to the part where her horse is killed in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere within the first hour of listening. Hardy's reputation for depressing tales has made me avoid him all my life and I don't know if I can go on if it goes downhill from here. I can read Dostoevsky with no problem, so I really don't know why I should have this phobia.

Hardy has had that effect on me too, Bea, but I am halfway through Tess now and find it very hard to put down. It is depressing but I think he does it in a very beautiful way - and it is not all gloom and despair at all.

V.r. wrote: "Interesting that Justine Waddell played both heroines. Is that coincidence or did someone plan it that way?"

Haha, I thought about that, too. Two great but very different roles, so lucky her :)

Also, in both novels there is a character named Clare. Purely coincidental I guess, but in my mind they have almost become distant relations - second cousins twice removed or something:)

Bea wrote: "I love Lady Harriet, too!

I just started Tess and got to the part where her horse is killed in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere within the first hour of listening. Hardy's reputat..."

Bea, it is not all gloom and doom.......quite enjoyable.....I am up to phase 4 so about 40% in or so....

Wow, I didn't even know this folder/thread was here! It's buried way down at the bottom, under all the other folders.

Interesting point about education not being valued by either family. It made me realize that Tess had attended the village school, but I don't believe that Molly, even though of a higher class, had any schooling. I wonder if it was more common for the lower classes to have these village schools and so receive at least a little education, while the middle/upper classes were expected to take charge of their own children's education, by way of a governess or something like that.

I think I must have missed Justine Waddell's version of Tess. I believe I have only seen the old movie with Nastassia Kinski, and the more recent one with Gemma Arterton.

The thing I'm most struck by is the difference in Hardy/Gaskell's attitude towards religion.

Having read more of Gaskells works, particularly North and South, her works have very strong religious overtones. The heroines are often saved, or granted reprieve, because of their strong and steadfast faith. That wasn't perhaps as strongly written into Wives and Daughters, but Molly was the perfect little paradigm of maiden virtue, modesty, loyalty and honor. Tess was these things as well, but it seemed different for her, it was in a much more natural way.

Hardy picks at religion frequently. He often paints it as something that is as uselessly confining of the human spirit as civilization and all its pretensions itself.

Hardy and Gaskell both wrote about nature. When Hardy does it, its for the sake and beauty of nature. When Gaskell writes about it, its more often relating to the providence of God.

I wonder if they met, and if they got along.