Friday, February 29, 2008
How Far From the Madding Crowd?
The setting of Far From the Madding Crowd is very different from that of Moll Flanders, Persuasion, and Wives and Daughters. Naturally, how characters will act is a function of setting. How different are Hardy's characters from the characters in the other novels? Is this difference just attributed to setting, do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
The characters in Hardy’s Far From the Madding Crowd are just the opposite from characters in the other novels. The difference may be attributed to the setting in which each novel takes place. For instance, Hardy’s novel is based around farm life whereas the other three novels are similarly based around societal structures. The characters in Hardy’s book have a connection. They show genuine concern for obvious people not belonging to their group. In the other novels, characters are disconnected and not concerned for members belonging to different societal groups.
I like Hardy’s female character’s important position in her society. He’s definitely a risk taker just as Defoe. The difference is how Hardy’s female protagonist doesn’t concern herself with moving up in society. She is content with her current position and doesn’t look to marriage for personal gain.
I would say setting does play a part in how characters are presented. I like the way Hardy’s characters are played out; they are more natural, realistic, and on a level of everyday folk. These characters are going on about their everyday lives which do include some scandal, betrayal, lies, and mayhem. Just like regular people.
The characters’ also express their feelings and say what is on their minds for the most part and we don’t have to wait 6 chapters or more ahead to find out what was really on ‘their’ mind.
I like this reading better than the other books; because of the setting, scandals, bluntness of the characters, and the meatiness of the story. The characters are interesting. I still get a kick out of Gabriel Oak’s sympathy and tenderness for the animals. That is touching.
Hardy’s book is good reading.
In Far From the Maddening Crowd, the people are of a different sort than the other novels we have read. In Moll Flanders we dealt with the upper-class and the scoundrels, we went from one extreme to the other. In Persuasions, we dealt only with the upper class, even those who weren’t necessarily of the upper class (Wentworth, Musgroves, etc) acted like all those pretentious, stuck up, self absorbed, trifling, maddening aristocrats in manner and action; however, in Crowd we deal with the working class. These are genuine, honest people (for the most part) who work hard, drink hard, and who don’t think too hard. Sure, there are exceptions: Oak is a pensive, complicated man who doesn’t often drink to excess, Pennyways, the bailiff, was a corrupt thief, Troy was just a miserable human being, and Boldwood was an aristocrat… sort of. For the most part, the characters in the novel, the surrounding character I should say, those that set the scene, were of the stock earlier described. I think they are very much a product of their environment, their simple rural life has not afforded them any of the luxuries of the high life, Boldwood is the closest thing they have to an aristocrat in their city, and even he’s not extremely well refined, when it comes down to it, he’s just a farmer. A person who someone of, say, Sir Walter Elliot status would look down upon. Another way that the characters in Crowd are different from the other works we’ve read is that these characters actually do something! What a great idea! Write a story where something happens! Wow, WHAT A FREAKING CONCEPT! Ok, Moll Flanders had her fair share of action, that was a pretty interesting read with all her wheeling and dealings, her thievery, her trips abroad and on shore, but Persuasions, man, the sheer tedium and absence of action, or the absence of anything vaguely interesting (even when something almost interesting happens, when Louisa falls off of the Cobb, Austen turns it into just another boring affair as Louisa turns out fine… I so wanted her to die). In Crowd there were fires, sheep avalanches, near deaths, sword play, and attempted suicide – I mean, Troy got shot in the middle of a Christmas party, how great is that?! Persuasion, on the other hand, had people putting on airs, dinner parties, and people not talking to each other… excited yet? Neither was I. The mind numbing tedium of polite society, the complete lack of action, the distastefulness of the characters and the cumbersome prose made reading Austen as much fun as jumping onto a bicycle without the seat… and while Crowd did cumbersome moments of its own (how much description do we really need about the damn trees?!) at least it had some redeeming qualities in the story’s action. Perhaps it is because I’m a guy and, as a guy, prone to guy things (explosions, fighting, full frontal nudity); but I’m pretty open minded as to the tastes of the opposite sex. I’ve seen my fair share of Sex and the City, I’ve given an honest opinion on which shirt I think looks better with what outfit (though I was apparently wrong in my choice) and have even worn panty hose from time to time (don’t laugh, they’re very supportive), but I’ve got to think that even someone consumed by romance and romantic thoughts would find Austen tedious… though I also though that the brown shirt went with the black pants.
In response to Sailor Girl…
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. Give me some tangible characters to read about who are doing things. I’m sure some can relate to the characters in Persuasions, but that has to be a low percentage. The majority of us are working class, beer drinking, sheep farmers (okay, perhaps we don’t all drink beer) who can relate to Hardy’s characters. Just like you said, their lives include scandal, betrayal, lies and mayhem… just like us!
In response to Chuck...
Dang, Chuck! (:o) What can I say....You sure do have a way with words. Well, Chuck, I might have to secretly agree with you on some things. I, too, would have liked a bit more blood and guts involved in the stories, and a few unlikely killings and deaths would have made for a far more interesting story, indeed. But that was a bit harsh of you wanting Louisa to die when she fell off the cobb. lmbo. I admit, however, it would have added a bit more of a twist and excitement if she did keel over when she fell over.
Now, sharing with us that you occassionaly wear pantyhose, now that is a story worth writing about. I would love to know the details and story behind a pantyhose wearing Chuck!!lol
Chuck, I would say, you are one of the most interesting characters I have read in this class, and you're not even in one of the novels!
I would say that the setting in this case is very important when it comes to the personalities and actions of certain characters. Namely, Bathsheba and her initial carefree, prideful, bossy personality. If she were in the city or somewhere similar where she had to put up airs and rely on marriage to get rich, I don't think she would be as free-spirited. She may have been at heart, but I think society would impose some rules on her that she would not be able to break so easily. However, on the farm she is allowed to do her own thing, especially when she decides that she is going to be the mistress of the farm. This action appeared to make her even more snooty and unwilling to listen to others' opinions. She thought she could do whatever she wanted without any consequences. However, when she finally gets conned into marriage, she does not have the same control that she did before.
It also helps that the setting includes more of the lower-class. These people are not as shady as their upper class brethren. I think that in dealing with this specific class of people, the story unfolds in a totally different way than it did in the other books.
As far as differences from characters in the other novels, I can only really compare Bathsheba to the antagonists in the other books since they are all women. Obviously Bathsheba is more outspoken and daring than quiet Anne. But at the same time, she marries for love, just like Anne, even if she realizes her mistake after it is too late. Moll Flanders took some control over her life, like Bathsheba, but she turned to marriage to get her out of her rut, something Bathsheba didn't really consider. Moll also turned to illegal things and made her living on the streets. That's not really something I can see Bathsheba doing, because she is too proud.
In response to Chuck,
I AGREE! I give your response 3 thumbs up, or I would if I had 3 thumbs. Anyhow, I like your comparisons to the plots in the other books we've read. I apologize to Dr. Battles, but I had to agree with the quote regarding Persuasion. In fact I loved it so much I just had to copy and paste: "The mind numbing tedium of polite society, the complete lack of action, the distastefulness of the characters and the cumbersome prose made reading Austen as much fun as jumping onto a bicycle without the seat…" According to that last part, I think reading Jane Austen was slightly more painful for Chuck...I'm sorry. It will only hurt for a few weeks.
Hardy's characters are quite different from the other characters that we have read about, especially females. For example, the women aren't man-hungry, out-of-work temptresses or prudes sitting at home swinging their feet on their mother's couches chewing gum waiting for some knight and shining armor to mystically appear and sweep them off their feet into royalty or something near that. Hardy's women are working class women or women in charge. These women are productive no matter what their social class seems to be. We don't see a lot of the socioeconomic fluff in Hardy's novel with the characters. However, these characters are everyday people who are not formally educated either, so most of them are in the same social class and there is no need to show heirarchy in a class system. These characters are direct in their approaches to each other. There is no double talk or beating around the bush. You either want to marry them or you don't. It is that simple. At least now we have more realistic sex scenes with the dialogue. I know that this novel was modestly written because of the era in which it was written, but gee whiz, at least we read about somebody actually making physical contact. It's not just some plutonic aesthetic relationship. Moll Flanders doesn't count because she was prostituting herself. Outside of prostitution, we actually have a real romance between two people that isn't taboo. Money is not involved. The irony though is that there is more than one man after Bathsheba. In the other novels we have read, it is usually the other way around and there are more women after the men.
In Far From a Madding Crowd, the characters go through the same family disfunctions that most families can relate to. Also the setting is in the country and deal with the middle-class, whereas the setting for the other books we have read is more city life and upper class. In Madding crowd, the families have money but it isn't the object of their every day thoughts which is different from Moll Flanders, Persuasion and Wifes and Daughters.
Hardy's characters all intertwine with one another and no matter their station in life they have genuine concern towards one another and aren't afraid to comunicate those concerns. The other books and characters are more out for themselves and what they can achieve in life and keep feelings and thoughts to themselves.
I believe that the setting is very important in understanding the characters and how they deal with situations in general.
The most evident similarity between all plots—and how the setting affects them—is the idea of the character’s moral responsibility. However, Far From the Madding Crowd tends to tie its characters to the natural world. It is full of archetypes regarding the environment that help shape much of the plot. The terrain, the animals, and the weather play a significant role as the novel unfolds. I also think that Hardy respects the changes that industrialization brought to the physical world, and this is evident in Fanny, Bathsheba, and Gabriel’s characters alike. Although Far From the Madding Crowd regards the theme of romantic relationships like the other novels, I think we see and feel a more personal touch as the lives of characters show loyalty, deception, direction and strength.
One major difference between this novel the the ones we have already discussed is that Bathsheba owns her own land. Moll Flanders entire life was centered around marrying a man who had land and money; Anne seems like she is just waiting for someone to marry her; and Molly Gibson is innocently oblivious to many of the things going on around her. Bathsheba isn't similar to any of those women. She is financially secure, she has many choices so she is not just waiting for someone to marry her (passively), and she is aware of most of the things that are going on around her. Maybe not by setting, but definately by circumstance.
The characters in the other three novels are members of a different type of society, middle to upper class found in an urban setting. The characters of Hardy's novel, however, are found in a rural setting and are generally of the lower class. However, Bathsheba is somewhat of a middle class character although she is one in the confines of the rural setting (being a farmer).
The characters in the other novels appear to be more refined, which can be seen in their language or word usage. Hardy's characters are a little rough around the edges, speak much more bluntly with each other, and while they continue to focus on social expectations, they do not give their full attention to them. These characters have had a much harder life than the others. They know what it is like to work for a living. I don't know if this has everything to do with setting, but I do believe that setting plays the biggest part in this difference of characters. Hardy's background probably also has a great impact on the development of the characters.
Hardy's characters are very much a different breed. They are very much a role reversal in that the men are more in the female roles from the other books and the females, though still in the female roles, have a more masculine tone. The characters are more like we are today and they play out in such a way that they could easily be a new prime time drama. I think that the setting has alot to do with it but I also think that Hardy has even more to do with it. Yes, Betsheba has land and money which is new and different, but she has such a commanding attitude that Hardy gave her. Same for the other characters. Hardy gave them such different personalities, the obsessive creap-o, the faithful one, the beautiful drunkard, and the flimsy thrown to the side one. It has everything to do with personality of character and not neccessarily just the setting.
Chuck,
1. Brown and black NEVER go together. haha!
2. Why would you EVER wear pantyhose??
and 3. I actually agree with your opinions. Usually you go out of your way to say something different and it's kind of... well, different... but you really hit something with this one. Even though you very obviously dislike Austen (Persuasion is her worst, in my opinion, however Mansfield Park is little bit better)and you go out of your way to call out her aristocratic bullshit, I think you dislike it so much because you cannot relate. Are you in fact a
"genuine, honest [person] (for the most part) who work[s] hard,[and] drink[s] hard"? I would have added the end but it seems you really do think. haha!
Lady t,
I agree with your assessment of the character's in Hardy's book. They not only have a connection but Bethasha is not out for personal gain, especially since she already has money and land of her own. The situations are a bit different and like you said, it might have something to do with with setting.
Chuck Norris, I'll comment on: These are genuine, honest people (for the most part) who work hard, drink hard, and who don’t think too hard.
First of, I'll comment on it because I liked it. I think you're reading too much poetry and have become a rhyming fool! I wouldn't totally tag everyone with those traits, however. Work hard and drink hard, yes. But, the think hard is what gets me. Gabriel, for one, is the example of being able to control the storm while he fully knows he can't fight against it. When love hits him, he doesn't get down; rather, he stays on his feet knowing what he must do to ensure his and Bathsheba's well being.
I think Bathsheba is a thinker too. Before she falls in love with the conniving Troy, she is a fairly stable and independent woman. She takes care of much on her land and flaunts her financial independence.
Gabriel might fall more under the analytical side, but the two sure could be considered thinkers.
Cicelyj,
I like your take on Hardy's book. Good point about their education. Perhaps, like Lacey says, their character and personality have much to do with their difference. An uneducated person probably wouldn't be interested in obtaining all of the wealth in the world. I believe they would be more concerned with getting through their day; obtaining a substantial amount of wealth is far fetched anyways--at least for Hardy's characters.
I feel that setting does contribute to the differences in Hardy's characters from the characters of the other novels, but the key difference is because they are from a completely different walk of life. They are farmers and laborers. Such a change in social class or lifestyle can have a big impact on the thoughts and actions of an individual, and this is evident when looking at the books we have read. In Far From the Madding Crowd setting does change the development of the novels characters but only because it represents the societal climate these characters are living in.
I agree with erin: I think the simple fact that the characters in Far From the Madding Crowd are from a different type of society sums up a lot of the differences between Hardy's characters and the characters from the other novels. The working class has a completely different perspective of life than say the Eliot's will ever have.
The primary difference I noticed in Hardy's characters was that they are pretty much all, more or less, or the same rung of the social class ladder (middle class). We do not see the contrast the high class Cumnors with the lowley Browning sister. The slight differentiation we do see is not held as a barrier, as in the case of Troy and Fanny. Presumably a soldier was of higher rank than a servant girl, yet that did not interfere with their relationship (Troy deserted Fanny because for Bathsheba not her poverty). Gabriel, formerly of the farm owner ranking Bathsheba belongs to, is now her highest "employee." Obviously, this presents some descrepancy of status, but neither let this interfere with love.
In response to Lacey:
Yes, the twist in gender roles impacts the novel as well as setting. Hardy throws in a more modern twist, allowing a woman to be in command, independent, and welathy. Bathsheba is unique to any of the other women we have read about thus far because she, more so than anyone else (due to her financial situation), has the real chance to marry (or even not marry!) for true love rather than money or position. She doesn't seem to care about either of these commodities, and, in a way, doesn't need to.
Post a Comment