The Return of the Native is a traditional 19th century novel by one of the great English novelists, Thomas Hardy. You’ll find that it’s kind of slow-paced for our tastes. But stick with it. The characters are interesting, and the situations they find themselves in are compelling. Hardy liked to subject his characters to the vagaries of fate, and that is certainly in evidence in The Return of the Native.
Warning: this book starts off slow. Real slow. It's a loving description of Egdon Heath, the setting for this novel. (The chapter gives you some idea of what it feels like for Eustacia to have to live there.)
Try to get through it. The heath is an important character in the novel. But, rest assured, the whole book is not like this. Once we start getting into characters, and especially plot, you'll like it. However, if -- and only if -- you would find yourself giving up on Hardy, (or starting to consider alternative paths), you have my permission to skip ahead. Try a paragraph or two, or to the end of the chapter if need be. But then start in again. Stick with it. You'll be glad you did.
Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee that this will be the least popular of the summer reading books. Well, tough. I believe that a lot of AP teachers create their summer reading lists for their colleagues rather than their students ("See what my students are reading!"). I don't do that. This is the most traditional of the summer reading books. It's a good novel, historically important, and something you should be capable of at least bulling your way through, if not enjoying.
For what it's worth, I read it first when I was a senior in high school, and I loved it. (Holden Caulfield even likes Eustacia, and he hates everything!)
I am not sure whether or not anyone else has read this novel yet, so as a warning, my post will probably contain spoilers. I found a few characters hard to like. Eustacia was one of them as she was unfaithful to her husband, Clym, in a few ways. She didn't really seem to fully sympathize with his eye impairment. She seemed far more invested in traveling to Paris than actually sympathizing with Clym. It appeared she lusted for money more than the man. This is later shown when she shows a renewed interest in Wildeve when he is discovered to have inherited a vast fortune. When she discovers this she appears to hint that she wishes she married him instead. It is also interesting to note that (if I remember correctly) Clym said something about being content with his life as a furze cutter for the time being. I believe that he said something about he had what he needed and they had enough money to get by as he was a hard worker. I felt that she was slightly ungrateful for his efforts.
ReplyDelete--Jacob Burns
I am so lost in this book right now. I know that we've all been warned that it is a slow read, but I couldn't imagine how slow it would be. It is really a struggle right now. I guess the one question that I have right now is are Thomasin and Damon Wildeve married? Because from the description in the book, I assumed quickly that they were married. However, then i began to read that there was an issue with the marriage. I'm just very confused haha
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Tran
They do have an issue with their marriage but they eventually get wedded. I don't believe that what I said was to much of a spoiler. On another note, the book does get a lot better in the second half so it will become easier to read.
DeleteI was confused about this as well, Tiffany. To answer your question, Wildeve and Thomasin were planning on marrying in the very beginning of the novel, but Wildeve made a technical mistake with the church and therefore they were physically unable to wed that day. By now I'm sure you've read up to the part where you find out that Wildeve had a past with Eustacia, so I am wondering if Wildeve purposely made this mistake because he still had feelings for Eustacia? Nonetheless, Wildeve and Thomasin marry soon after.
Delete~Alyssa Hurlbut
Possible Spoilers: Jacob, while I can understand why you didn't like Eustacia, I found her to be the most interesting character. Though many of her actions were hurtful to others, I don’t think it was always her intention. Without a doubt Eustacia was selfish and manipulative, but her actions aren't terribly hard to understand. Her goal from the beginning was to get out of the heath. She explicitly didn’t want to live the life of the heath-wife. Her initial preoccupation with Clym was because he was from Paris and worked as a businessman, very different from your average heath –cutter. Though her feelings were genuine at one point, she probably would’ve latched on to any man that was offering to take her to Paris. When Clym started working in the fields it was the exact opposite of what Eustacia had planned. She felt trapped again. She would never have been happy living in the heath; even when she and Clym were in full swing, she still talked about moving. Then Wildeve’s fortune was yet another chance of escape, it wasn't so much about the money as it was about the freedom. However that method also came with strings that Eustacia was unwilling to deal with. You could say that Eustacia was ungrateful and you would be right. However, you could also say that Eustacia never got what she signed up for, so I don't blame her for complaining.
ReplyDelete-Turner Bouley
Turner, I have a question for you...do you think Eustacia was hard-headed enough at any point to simply head off on her own to Budmouth and escape the heath? Or would her "selfish and manipulative" manner lead her to favor tricking/coercing someone into giving her a ride?
DeleteI don't like asking more questions than I can answer, but I'm interested to know what you (and I guess others, too) have to say.
~Leonard
Leonard, to answer your question, I believe Eustacia didn't view running off on her own as an option because it wouldn't have been proper for a woman to do so. Eustacia was concerned with seeming "high class". I think doing something that would've been so scandalous ( despite her other scandalous behaviors) would be out of the question. Eustacia chose to manipulate men such as Clym and Wildeve because she needed to travel with a man to save face.
Delete-Turner Bouley
Understood. The answer to my question became much clearer to myself as I approached the end of the book. Moreover, Eustacia was not in a good financial situation to flee the heath, so more the reason to manipulate susceptible men into providing money, too.
DeleteBy the way, thanks for responding so pointedly. I chose not to say anything earlier because I hadn't encountered Clym Yeobright then.
~Leonard
In my edition of the book it was stated that the ending that Hardy wrote wasn't his intended conclusion. It specified that his intention was to have Diggory disappear and never to be seen again. I liked the ending that was implemented into the novel however and how there was something that the characters didn't need to mourn about. I liked how Diggory married Thomasin because he was one of the only characters who was generally a good person from what I remember reading (I finished the book a while ago so I might be making a broad generalization about his character). It was nice to see that this man who always seemed to care for her was finally rewarded with her love. An example of said care would be when he won her money back by gambling with Damon Wildeve. I thought it was a nice change from all of the depressing events of the rest of the novel.
ReplyDelete--Jacob Burns
I agree, I did like the ending that was in the book...but wouldn't it have been so much more delightfully frustrating if the real ending was used? Still, I can't decide which is better...
DeleteMy edition explained the discretion between the two ending as well, but I could not agree more Jacob: I like the modernized version where Thomasin and Diggory end up together. I, too, like to see Diggory finally rewarded with Thomasin's love after all he had done for her. He silently bore the immense burden of Thomasin's protector as he gambled in the heath with Wildeve and even as he pulled three lifeless bodies out of the water one fateful night. Maybe I just like this final romantic notion emulated through the marriage, but I know I wouldn't have been satisfied with Diggory walking off into the heath and never being heard from again...
DeleteJenny Jacobs
I also agree with everyone else, I like this version a lot more than the intended version. The last couple chapters in the 5th book were very sad and tragic. I like how, rather than continuing on with that theme and having the characters never hear from Venn again, its a happier ending and it almost makes you forget about the horrors that just happened. I (unlike most) actually was sad when Eustacia and Damon died as I didn't hate them like most people did. So to think that all the characters (even Clym) ended up in a happy place made me enjoy putting the book down, and not wonder what else could happen. Bottom line, I was satisfied with the ending because I almost felt like all my questions were answered.
DeleteI think I would have preferred the original ending intended by Hardy to the one he used. To me, the ending used did not fit the mood of the rest of the story. In my edition, it says that Hardy bowed to pressure from his publishers and the audience who wanted to see a happy ending. Before the ending, this book played out as a pure tragedy. Everyone is married to the wrong person, most of the characters are unhappy with where they are in life, and just when something is going right for a character, fate knocks them back down. Two examples: just when Clym is getting close to achieving his goal of forming his own school, he loses his sight, and Clym talks in his sleep at just the right time to make Eustacia believe he is awake, which leads to his mother's death. However, all this build up seems to be negated by the happy ending. I agree with Brooke, the happy ended almost makes you forget about the horrors, but to me this makes the book lose some of it's impact. The ended seemed cliche to me, and was disappointing after the dark and psychologically impacting first five books. Additionally, I did not feel that the actual ending fit with the character of Venn. Throughout the book, he acts as more of a plot device than a character, helping to move action along. He is always in the right place at the right time, even from his first introduction, when he happens to come across Thomasin. He acts as her guardian, manipulating events to help her. However, very little is revealed about his character, and he remains an enigmatic person throughout the book. Even his appearance, dyed completely red, showcases his strangeness and mysteriousness. To me, it seems as if the character was never written to join into the world of the rest of the characters, but instead remain a force acting on their world from outside. Knowing the original intention of the author was to have Venn disappear back into the heath, it makes sense that the character was developed in this way.
DeleteI went back and forth with the ending, as I could not decide if, as Molly pointed out, the happier version clashed with the mood. I ultimately think that depending on how you look at it, either version could have worked. But I personally liked the happy ending because I feel that it completed Thomasin as a character. Throughout the novel, Thomasin was portrayed as a relatively happy character, who had the most pure and innocent of intentions. Even after Mrs. Yeobright died, Thomasin chose to look at the brighter side of things by assuring Clym that the death was not his fault. Venn parallels Thomasin in the sense that he had the best of intentions as well, even though his emotional ties toward Thomasin sometimes served as a barrier. (Ex: Venn convinces Damon to cut ties with Eustacia in order to preserve Thomasin's happiness). For this reason, I felt that Thomasin and Venn would have been a better fit for each other than Thomasin was with Damon. In addition, the marriage wasn't completely out of left field because throughout the story, Thomasin longed for a father for her baby. Her struggle with Damon was more centered around her fear of being deserted rather than her fear of losing the one she loved. So, by implementing Venn as Thomasin's husband, Thomasin's fear of being alone is cured, leaving me to question whether she ever really loved Damon, or if she had married him solely to fulfill this romantic void in her life.
DeleteI definitely didn't like the Aftercourses section. I felt that the ending of the fifth section was brilliant, and the end of the sixth section ruined it for me. I appreciate that the sixth section gives some nice closure on what ends up happening to the remaining characters, but it really wasn't worth it. It just seems like a, "Oh I forgot to tell you this earlier so here you go now goodbye" kind of tag on the end of an incredibly good novel, and it totally wrecked my opinion of the book. I'm so glad to know that it wasn't Hardy's original intention to put that there! I thought the part that he originally intended to be an ending was brilliant as an ending. It was perfect.
DeleteI won't lie, I wanted Venn and Thomasin married for the whole novel, but it was not worth the shoddy and incongruent tail end of the book.
Personally I prefer the ending that Harding had intended for the novel. As Molly pointed out it flows much better with the mood of the rest of the novel. This ending teaches the important lesson that not everything turns out the way it was intended to. The other ending softens this blow with the marriage of Venn and Thomasin.
DeleteI have to say, as a reader, I enjoyed the ending of the novel more than I, personally, would’ve enjoyed the intended ending. To me, it felt deserved I guess, like it had been a long time coming. I had lost so much hope by the end that I found myself just thinking, “At least one thing has to go right in this book.” I mean, come on. At any rate, Thomasin seemed to me one of the most mature, level-headed characters in the book. I couldn’t help but find myself rooting for her in the end. Everyone in this book is something of a hot mess, but I felt more sorrow for Thomasin than resentment towards her, which was pretty much unique to her character. If anything were to go well, I wished it would be for her. However, I can definitely see the argument that the hopeful ending starkly contrasts the carefully crafted mood of the first five books. I suppose, in my opinion, hope for the characters and desire for a silver lining overshadows the need for a consistent mood. Regardless, I find the discretion in our opinions as a modern audience interesting.
Delete*SPOILERS*
ReplyDeleteThis book was rather long, but I don't know if "slow" is the right word...yes it is time- consuming to read such a book, but I feel one must appreciate the time and effort Thomas Hardy has put into helping us understand exactly how the characters live, feel, and think. In my opinion, everything in the book is "just so" for a reason. If it were not, then such a series of tragic events would not have unfolded! Moving on to the subject of characters ! How ironic is it that Damon's last name is Wildeve? Anyone else pick up on that? Everything scandalous he seems to do , it takes place in the evening. I found him to be an arrogant character, believing he can always get what he wants. Serves him right to lose Eustacia , and dare I say to die, but I do feel bad because he did not die the way that others believe. It is only fate that he died trying to save Eustacia, but others will believe he died with her in some outrageous scandal. Eustacia herself I found to be a frustrating character. I did sympathize with her ,because she has been played cruelly by fate, but I also wished she wasn't so manipulative. Diggory, or Mr.Venn has been the most fascinating character in this whole novel, in my opinion. He is clever, and faithfully loyal to Thomasin, even though she has rejected him. I enjoyed his witty ways and found great amusement in the scene where he wins back Thomasin's and Clym's money from Damon. However I feel Diggory is much more important than we realize. I think he is very symbolic , especially since he is a reddleman. Throughout the novel, I picked up on the many appearances of the color red, fire, and all things associated with them. It is then no mistake that Diggory is the reddleman. Yet, I am still torn as to whether or not this symbolism is good, bad, or both.
~Jenna Minto
I really liked the comment you made about "Wildeve" I never thought of that and I'm glad you brought it up! I picked up on Johnny "Nonsuch" because Eustacia treated him as if he were nothing important, but I didn't think of that!
DeleteI haven't made much of a dent in this, but I will say that, for someone who normally can't stand extensive descriptions, I really like the way Hardy does it. The way he described the heath made me anticipate something similar to an animal jumping out of the bushes, a sharp crack of sound after a suspicious silence, like it's dormant but living. Like I said, not much of a dent. That's all for now.
ReplyDelete-Elena
Elena,
DeleteI found that I can agree with you on the way Hardy described the heath. Granted, my three year old brother was more enthusiastic about trying to read the cover than I was about reading the novel, but the descriptions are what kept me interested and stopped me from moving on to a different book. In my own opinion, Hardy not so much dragged out the descriptions of sceneries and plot happenings, but kept them lengthy to give a sense of suspicion that an important development was going to happen or a sudden change of situation was in store.
This is a very frivolous thing to say, I'll admit, but does anyone find the names in this book rather intriguing? Imagine naming your kid Diggory or Thomasin or Clement...
ReplyDelete~Leonard
I really liked the name Thomasin actually! I don't know why, but it was definitely intriguing to me. Glad I'm not the only one who really looked closely at the names in this novel haha
DeleteYou forgot Eustacia! I probably spent half my time reading trying to figure out exactly how you would pronounce that!!
DeleteI'm not going to lie I was a little confused about Thomasin's gender for a few moments at the beginning of the book, because my brain kept wanting it to say Thomas! I like Diggory as a name though, because well, Cedric Diggory. Not that that is at all relevant, but that's what I associate that name with. And his full name was Clementine! That's what Thomasin's baby's middle name is, because she names the baby after the couple. I found that a little weird, because why wouldn't you be more creative than that, and leave that name for the actual couple in case they ever had a child?
DeleteDid anyone else notice how every thing that possibly could have gone wrong, actually went wrong in this book? I found Hardy's writing style fascinating as he fluctuated between hopefulness and despair so easily. For example, Eustacia is finally married to Clym and her dreams of moving to Paris are in within sights (although somewhat farther away than she would like) and then Clym's eye sight begins to reduce and he is diminished to a furze cutter. Another glaring example of this is when it is discovered Thomasin has delivered a beautiful baby girl, and then we discover the baby's name is Eustacia, of all names! Any hope for a renewed love and happy family dwindle with the now constant reminder of the pain elder Eustacia has caused. Although this style is seemingly sinister, it kept me reading and ready for the story to take any number of twists and turns.
ReplyDeleteJenny Jacobs
I have just finished Book First of this work and I can definitely see how Hardy sets up the reader for the hopefulness and despair you described. When characters interact with each other in the first part of the novel, I believe Hardy very skillfully uses dialogue to contrast any hopefulness one character may offer with a response, or event that illustrates the despair that is also present. I agree that this style of writing he uses certainly makes me want to continue reading.
DeleteHere I applaud you both for taking the time to process the stylistic elements; being focused on finishing reading the work, I forgot to look deeper into the book. At any rate I'd like to add that I noted that timing issues played a role as well.
Delete*spoiler time*
Take, for example, Eustacia's tragic flight from Mistover. Her decision to depart was being finalized just as Clym was writing to get her back. It's a fiasco. On the same note: the near-concurrent visits from Damon Wildeve and Mrs. Yeobright to the Alderworth cottage...that's unfortunate. I myself seem to always butt in at the wrong times, but what I've known is nothing compared to Hardy's contrivances.
That is exactly what I mean Leonard! EVERYTHING seemed to go wrong at just the right time
DeleteSo I've only finished the first book, and so far it kind of reminds me of The Great Gatsby. I know its a far comparison but the part that reminds me of it was when Damon offered to run away to America with Eustacia but she doesnt want to even though she acts like she would do anything for him. In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby offers to run away with Daisy but she doesnt want to even though she acts like she loves Gatsby more than her husband. As Mrs. Morrison said, Daisy was more in love with the thrill of the affair than with Gatsby himself, so when you take away the "sneaking around" aspect, its no longer fun for her. In away I almost feel like thats the case with Eustacia. I know I'm not that far into the book so that could easily change once Clym becomes a character, but I wanted to share my connection so far.
ReplyDeleteBrooke I completely agree with you, especially the part where you said Daisy is in love with the thrill of the affair, rather than Gatsby himself. Eustacia is much like Daisy because she 'falls in love' based on circumstance rather than reality. Like in the beginning of the novel, Eustacia believes that she is in love with Damon, but after she hears that Thomasin rejects Damon, it becomes clear that Eustacia was only in love with the idea of obtaining a man whom other woman were vying for. The same might hold true with Clym...Eustacia might be in love only with Paris, using Clym as a vehicle to get there.
DeleteI never made this connection until I read your post! I completely agree that there is a Great Gatsby vibe to what is happening in the first book. The love both Daisy and Eustacia feel are fueled by the idea of adventure and circumstance, opposed to the men themselves. Like Daisy who only was interested in Gatsby for the thrill of the affair, the scene where Eustacia denounces Damon because Thomasin doesn't want him is reminiscent of that. She wants Damon because Thomasin wants her, and once Thomasin is out of the picture, the thrill is gone.
DeleteGreat connection, Brooke!
I orginally started reading this novel in the beginning of the summer but couldn't seem to get into it and found it to be quite slow. I kept getting lost in the description of Edgon Heath and craved for some degree of action to capture my attention and make me want to keep reading, I eventually had to put the book down for awhile and move on to Hedda Gabler with the intent to come back with a open mind. Now that i have finished the book, i actually really enjoyed it!! Once i figured out who loved who, it began to make a lot more sense and i found that i was looking forward to what happened next. I noticed other people saying everything that could go wrong did go wrong and i think that is one of the reasons i was so interested in finishing the book. I felt bad for certain characters and found myself to be rooting for the underdog. On another hand, i felt bad for Clym because Edgon Heath seemed to be a sinister force on the progression of his life. He came back to his native homeland as the big fish, having spent so much time in Paris. Everyone had been talking about his return so i feel that is one reason he felt compelled to stay, as he enjoyed the attention. I also had compassion for Diggory Venn because no matter what he did, he was always #2. At the end of the novel, Thomas Hardy writes a footnote explaining that Thomasin's and Venn's marriage was not the originally planned ending. He then asks the reader to pick the more "consistent" ending for themselves. Which do you think is the more plausible or pleasing ending regarding Thomasin and Diggory?
ReplyDelete~Grace Lavertu
Grace, as far as the ending is concerned I preferred the one where Thomasin and Diggory did not end up together. Though the other ending does give you that warm, fuzzy feeling, it contradicts the rest of the book. The whole Murphy's law aspect of the book clashes with the concept of Diggory getting out of the friend zone.
DeleteGuys, as much as I hated the slowness of this book, I really, really, REALLY, enjoyed it! To start off, the amount of description in the book really bothered me. Like, if I remember correctly, there was literally a 3 paged description on just Eustacia herself. I admire the fact that Hardy wanted to paint a very vivid picture in our minds, however, 3 pages was a little excessive to me. On another note, I loved the drama in this book. The turns and turns of events right after one another was so intriguing and captivating. I felt as if I was in a soap opera (is that weird? haha). Eustacia's character really bothered me. I literally wanted to poke a pencil through the book because she was that irritating. She desired so much from Clym. It was as if she was just using him the entire time to get to Paris, to have a sense of importance and status. It disgusted me. Thomasin on the other hand, I adored her character. She was so sweet and sincere, with such a sense of innocence radiating off of her. Or maybe that's just me! Wildeve's character, along was Eustacia's, was not a favorite. I did not like him, at all. I was very happy to see that Hardy killed off Eustacia and Wildeve. Although, I was very sad for Clym to have experience such a tragedy. Although, I was content with his ending, becoming a preacher and everything. It might not have been the job he wanted, but he was still going around and teaching people. Thomasin and Diggory getting married was a wonderful ending. It goes to show that even through all the tragedy, some happiness could be found for some of the characters. Overall, I loved the book!
ReplyDeleteLast note: did Wildeve and Thomasin name their child Eustacia? Because if they did, that'll ruin the whole book for me....just kidding xD
They named her "Eustacia Clementine" which is meant to be a girl version of Clyms name. So yes Damon named his child after his lover and his lovers husband. Which I happen to find a bit unnecessary and obsessive.
Delete"Unnecessary and obsessive" made me laugh a bit.
DeleteIt could have been that he was making some odd attempt to remove old temptations-- it could've been a "nope, you gotta stay home and take care of THIS Eustacia" deal. Obviously, if that was actually the intention, he...failed.
~Leonard
While I understand what you say about Eustacia, I feel like her intentions were never malicious toward Clym. I feel like her overall attitude toward him and her expectations of her marriage arose primarily from her naive fantasies that she had made before she even met him, and not because of a desire to use him as a ticket to Paris. I think in her mind, marrying him would have resulted in not only Paris, but happiness for both of them.
Delete-Shannen Kelly
Shannen, I see where you are coming from, and your explanation definitely makes sense. Never saw it that way! However, I think when she wanted to marry Clym, she was only thinking of herself. I dont think she ever intended to care for his happiness. Like you said, she had many fantasies about Paris. In a way, it seems as if she was using him to get to the status Clym was at.
DeleteI agree with Shannen! I don't think Eustacia can be critisized for marrying Clym, especially in the time period of the story. However, I don't think she married Clym solely because she felt she had to. While reading it seemed to me as though the two were genuinely in love as they strolled through the heath. I cant agree with your point Tiffany where you say she was only thinking of herself. When Clym started to lose his eye sight Eustacia stayed by his side despite her boredom and disapproval of his furze cutting. She tried very hard to be a good wife to him, but that was simply not the life she wanted.
DeleteSorry if this sounds repetitive, I haven't read some of the comments, as I have not finished the novel yet and do not want to spoil it for myself(:. But I am a little more than halfway through, and I actually don't mind the book. The storyline is relatable, because it deals with true love vs. faux love, a struggle that will forever be present in modern-day society. One of the main conflicts centers around characters' confusion as to how they want to feel about their lovers vs. how they actually feel. For example, Eustacia creates an image of Clym in her head before even meeting him, mostly due to the fact that he is from Paris, and Eustacia seeks to escape the Heath. As the book mentions, Eustacia forces herself to fall in love with the image of Clym, and thus is disappointed when she actually meets Clym and finds that the love connection is not 100% there. Still, Eustacia continues to force herself into loving Clym, and is disillusioned by the fact that she tells herself that she is actually in love with him (even though her main motive is to use him as her mode of escaping). I think that this aspect of Eustacia is relatable to many of us, because as a society we have a habit of fantasizing about the unknown and building ideas up in our heads rather than living in the present and taking things as they come.
ReplyDelete~Alyssa Hurlbut
Quick comment here:
DeleteI'm a person who's always trying to find the right phrasing for things and end up missing all the time. That said, I really like your choice of words: '"faux love" is accurate and sophisticated at the same time. Excellent selection.
~Leonard
Thanks Leonard!
DeleteI have the same sentiments about Eustacia as you do Alyssa! The comment you made about how we all have a habit of fantasizing about the unknown is something that I told myself when I was reading the book. Eustacia is very relatable in that sense. I think that she never consciously forced herself to love him, but instead tricked her own mind into thinking that since he was her escape, there was no way she couldn't love him. I found her to be extremely naive in that sense, and I could understand how she was confused once she actually married him, and realized that she had imagined a life for herself that wasn't ever going to be a reality. Overall, I loved your comment, and how you summed up what the book is essentially about--what the characters truly feel, and what they tell themselves they should feel.
Delete-Shannen Kelly
Okay, so I just finished reading this book and I have a few comments that I believe are very different from each other so I am going to post them all separately, so please excuse my spamming of this blog. Anyway, this book was really hard for me to read. While others find it fascinating how descriptive Hardy was, I thought it was completely unnecessary, he spent CHAPTERS describing things that most authors could describe in a paragraph. I find it very hard to pay attention when their isn't human interaction or at least thoughts. So pages on pages with none of that was difficult for me to keep my mind from wandering. However having that said, once all the new elements were introduced and Hardy stopped describing things, I actually surprisingly liked this book. I think all of the weird quirks this story had that we aren't used to is what makes it so fascinating. For example, I couldn't get over the reddleman. No matter how hard I try I can not imagine an entirely red man with entirely red belongings.
ReplyDeleteI also found the description a bit excessive at times, and would have to go back and re-read passages because I realized that I had zoned out. However, once I became invested in the story, I found his descriptions charming, and was able to enjoy the quirks of the story like you were. And though the description was never the most interesting or compelling, looking back, I feel that it really added to the tone of the novel, and without it, I feel like I wouldn't be walking away with the appreciation of the story that I do now. So, while it was a pain to get through, and sometimes made my eyes ache, I feel like they added to the story more than they took away from it. However, I agree that it was the human interaction and conversations that kept me going throughout the book, as well as the chapter titles. Sometimes, I found the chapter names more interesting than the chapter itself!
Delete-Shannen Kelly
I completely agree with Shannen. While at times it was a bit hard to get through, I thought the description, especially of the heath, added to the mood of the story as well as my understanding of the plot. Through all the description, the heath seemed to come alive, as if it was one of the main characters. I could really see why the heath had the impact it did on the characters, and through the description I was able to see how the characters were connected to the heath. For example, the first descriptions of the heath at night feel like they could be out of a ghost story. The reader can feel the effect it has on Eustacia. The heath seems dark, wild, all encompassing, and it is obvious why Eustacia feels trapped. The imagery of the heath mirrors the imagery surrounding Eustacia, further supporting their connection. The heath itself is uncaring and constant. It kills many of the characters, through heat with Mrs. Yeobright, or through drowning with Eustacia and Wildeve. Because of this, the heath influences the plot more than perhaps any other "character." Not only could I picture exactly what the heath looked like, but I could feel the emotional impact of the it.
DeleteI absolutely agree with all of you guys. The description was very bothersome to me because of how excessive it was. But yes, there was such a charm within the description, once you got into the book.
DeleteThis is very strange for me to say, but I actually liked a lot of the description too. I'm not usually one for long drawn out explanations and excessive detail, but I think Hardy did a very good job with most of it. I actually feel like I can picture all of the characters and the ins and outs of the heath. For me, this made the book much easier to read and way more relatable. HOWEVER, there were several parts of the novel where the decription was not needed and like Tiffany said very bothersome
DeleteI agree with Brooke in the descriptions are very long and tedious to read. I often found myself spacing out half way through a paragraph and then having to start over again. I understand the author wanting to really set the scene, but it took forever to get to the actual plot. That being said once the drama of the book started it was enjoyable to read.
DeleteSomething that really confused me about this book was the different places in the story (this could possibly be because I couldn't pay attention during the descriptions). At first, my understanding was that Edgon Heath was almost like a state and all of the other places such as Rainbarrow, Blooms-End, and Alderworth were all towns within the Heath. But as I kept reading, I realized that there is no way this could be possible. So then I thought of "Gone With the Wind" and how Scarlett kept talking about her home in Tara, and that I had thought Tara was the town she lived in but it was actually her plantation. I then assumed that Edgon Heath was the town and all of the other places were plantations within the town. I was honestly probably the only one who was confused by this, but if anyone could confirm/deny my thought that would be great!
ReplyDeleteIn my edition of the book in the front there is a map of every place talked about ! I'm not sure if there is one in yours but I would be happy to share the picture with you! I don't know if it can be posted here on the blog but i can email it to you or whatever you would like!
DeleteOh wow okay my edition actually does too! I wish I had noticed that while I was reading. Thanks Jenna!
DeleteAt the very beginning of the story (before Clym was a character) I kept thinking - why can't Thomasin just marry Diggory and then Wildeve can be with Eustacia and everything will be solved. Then, when I finished the book and realized how this is exactly how the story ends, I started to wonder why it took an entire story for that to happen. Then I realized - the return of the native. Clym was precisely the reason why it took an entire story for something to happen that should have happened at the beginning. In my opinion Clym is the reason the story has all of its twists and turns, and that is why he was given the title. I could go into detail and give many examples of how Clym changed the course of the story but, frankly that’s unnecessary. In fact, if you think about it, almost everything that prevented the ending from happening was due to Clym.
ReplyDeleteI’m not going to lie when I first got this book, based on the title, I thought it would be a modern story about Native Americans who still exist and are going to become the dominate race (basically “the Rise of the Planet of the Apes” but with Native Americans). Even though that story could potentially be a lot more interesting, I think I like this version better. It really makes you think about why the title is so desperately important to the entire story.
DeleteI didn't really think too much about the title, aside from when it became clear that Clym coming home was what it was referring to. It's true though - all the conflicts developed from the single event of Clym returning from Paris. It really wasn't as obvious (to me, at least) as it maybe should've been because I didn't think of it in this light until I read this.
DeleteFor my final comment, I just wanted to talk about how similar the deaths were in both “The Return of the Native” and “Hedda Gabler”. They both are completely left open to the reader’s imagination, however for different reasons. In “Hedda Gabler”, we know she commits suicide but the reason why is different for every reader. In “The Return of the Native”, we have no idea if Eustacia committed suicide or if it was all just an accident. The way I personally believe it happened was that Eustacia had planned the entire time to commit suicide and the reason she wanted to send the signal anyway is because she wanted Damon to be the one to find her, and maybe if he found her like that he would also commit suicide. I think the fact that there’s literally dozens of different things that could have happened is what makes the ending so fascinating. Like I said, each reader has a different interpretation of what happened. Having that said, I’m curious to think about what everyone else thinks happened.
ReplyDeleteOnce again sorry for the spam!
I do agree that Eustacia committed suicide! she was all too familiar with the heath, especially doing her travels at night, to have accidentally drowned!
DeleteI also agree that Eustacia committed suicide. It seems to be the inevitable conclusion of her story.Throughout the book, she is shown to hate the heath, even though she seems very much a part of it. However, she refuses to surrender to the heath that surrounds her, and continues to fight it. One thing is certain: she will not allow herself to be stuck there forever. However,her options are extremely limited. She can flee, but would forever be indebted to Wildeve. In my opinion, she was too proud and stubborn to allow herself to entirely depend on one man, especially one she did not respect by the end of the book. It seems fitting to her character that she would pick the option in which she was entirely in control.
DeleteHowever, I could also say that it doesn't matter whether she committed suicide or drowned accidentally. Either way, the inevitable conclusion was reached: she tried to fight against the heath, but could never escape it.The main conflict in this story seems to be man (or woman) versus nature. Eustacia spends the whole story fighting against the forces of nature, but they are too much a part of her for her to ever escape. She hates the heath, yet in many ways is fully a part of a heath. Whether her connection to the heath drives her to suicide or the heath takes her for it's own, the end result is the same. Eustacia is literally swallowed up by the heath she hates, and become fully a part of the nature she had been fighting.
I have a hard time believing Eustacia committed suicide. Why would she "accidentally" drown herself if her dream of fleeing from the heath was finally in sights? However, I do agree with Molli that the inevitable conclusion was reached.
DeleteI can see arguments for both sides of the suicide debate, but to me, the reason she might have committed suicide is because her dream of fleeing the heath was not in her sights. She did not have the money or resources to escape on her own, and needed Wildeve's help. In order to survive in Paris, she needs him to come with her. So, her big escape to freedom would end up being an escape to another prison. She also realizes that Wildeve is not the man she thought he was, and lost her respect for him. This left her with two options: flee the heath with a man she thought was not worthy of her, or stay in the heath. I think it fits with Eustacia's character that she would rather die than subject herself to two equally dark futures.
DeleteI believe that Hardy purposely made the ending ambiguous. However, I also feel like it is more likely that she killed herself than anything else. Like Molli said, it's in her character to do something as drastic as this instead of facing a reality that she was unhappy with. Also, all of her hopes and dreams were crumbling around her. If she went to Paris alone she would be poor, and if she went with Damon she would be tied to a man who she thought was inferior. Staying in the heath wasn't even an option in her mind, so I think she viewed death as the lesser of the evils.
DeleteI agree that it is in Eustacia's character to pull off something as drastic as committing suicide, however I don't think that's what happened. Eustacia wanted nothing more than to escape her life on the heath, and this dream seemed attainable to her with the aid of Wildeve. So on the night when she was finally going to get out, why would she kill herself? Eustacia was very self-centered, so in my eyes I think she couldn't have cared less how she got away from the heath, as long as she did it. Also, I really don't think she would have thought into the future about what her life may become when she got to Paris. It doesn't seem very Eustacia-like to be that logical. However, this is coming from somebody who never liked Eustacia, so maybe I'm just biased and unwilling to give her any credit.
DeleteI don't think Eustacia intentionally committed suicide. Allow me to explain.
DeleteThe weather conditions were very unfavorable for any journey, even the journey of a person determined to reach a destination. Thus the trip was suicidal due to the circumstances, but not suicidal in intention.
That made sense in my head and I hope that made sense elsewhere as well.
~Leonard
I like Molli's comment that "...she tried to fight against the heath, but could never escape it." I think that really encompasses her conflict and her innermost fears. She is completely and utterly trapped by this place, and even in death she is overcome by it. It's ironic, really, that the one thing she holds the most resentment for is to blame for her tragic end.
DeleteAlmost finished with the book, and I have to say that I feel kind of badly for Eustacia. Yes, she can be extremely selfish and she did deceive her husband, but I sort of sympathize with her, because she clearly does not belong on the Heath and desperately wants to escape. When she married Clym, she truly believed that her motives were pure. Also, even though I like Clym, he refuses to compromise or consult his wife and seems to turn a blind eye to the fact that Eustacia is miserable. I guess Eustacia could have found a way to be more independent and escape the Heath by herself, though.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you about sympathizing with Eustacia. To me, her character is extremely tragic.Not only does she feel completely trapped, but she feels completely alone in the heath. One quote that really stuck out to me was "“To be loved to madness--such was her great desire. Love was to her the one cordial which could drive away the eating loneliness of her days." Who longs to be loved to madness? She desires these feelings instead of an actual person, and because she longs for abstract emotions she can never be satisfied with simply a person. She seems like a cursed character, forced to wander the heath alone, until her final act of escape.
DeleteThis book was definitely a difficult one to get through, but looking back on it as a whole I would say that I did come to enjoy and appreciate the story as well as Hardy's writing style and methods of characterization. I totally agree that Eustacia is similar to Daisy in that she loves more the affair than the man and seems to always want what she can't necessarily have. In the end I found myself pitying Clym the most, as he seemed to me to be the most honorable in his actions out of all the main characters. He was truly committed to Eustacia, his ambitions to teach and be a preacher and even his willingness to be a furze-cutter showed his character to be based on ideals beyond just money or title, and he seemed the least manipulative and sneaky. I did feel bad for Eustacia as well when Clym harped on her so harshly before she left, but her emotional infidelity and fickleness towards him (and others) and her stinginess towards his mother made me think at least a little that she deserved what she got. If Clym has just stayed in Paris and, like Brooke said, Thomasin marry Diggory and Eustacie marry Wildeve, there would have been so many fewer problems. But then again there wouldn't have been much of story either.
ReplyDeleteBut, should Thomasin marry Diggory, and Eustacia marry Damon, would we have a Hedda Gabbler or Romeo and Juliet-esque story on our hands? These marriages very likely would have led to unhappiness and perhaps, in a series of incredible events, potential suicides, as seen in the two works listed above. Is this an accurate assumption?
Delete-Michael Marandino
Mr. MacArthur, you were correct in your assertion that this would be the most unpopular summer reading selection was correct, for me at least. I did not like this novel at all, to be bluntly honest. I found Eustacia to be a manipulative and easily hated character. I think the only character I was actually fond of was Diggory Venn. He was honorable and true to his word, and made an honest living by working hard.
ReplyDeleteA literary "classic" has been defined as having characteristics as follows; expression of an artistic quality (life, beauty, truth, etcetera), firmly represents the time period it was written in/stands the test of time, holds a certain universal appeal, and that it makes connections outside of itself. Upon great analysis, I believe this work followed three of the four definitions of a classic. It blatantly expressed the issues of love and life. Also, I believe it did represent the 17th century fairly well. The dialect used was that of the 17th century, and though I did not particularly like that, it was accurate. Third, this work made external connections. Today, people still manipulate each other to get what they want, even if that means they have to push what they want away to obtain it (such as Eustacia pushing Damon away to reel him back in, then finally pushing him away to grasp Clym). I do not, however, believe that this work held a universal appeal. Although I do respect Hardy's work, I did not enjoy this story whatsoever. Perhaps I am wrong in the definition of a "universal appeal" here, but I will go with my belief over this definition. I found my eyes glazing over as I tried to blaze a trail through the books. I found much of the language rather difficult to understand, especially that spoken by the characters. This book took longer for me to get through than most combinations of all the other readings I had to endure this summer. Now, I am not shunning those who may have enjoyed it, I am just attempting to provide insight into why I did not enjoy Hardy's literary "classic." Mr. MacArthur was also correct by stating that it was a slow read, though I found the whole thing a slow read rather than just the beginning. I am glad to have read it, so that I have more experience with literature, but I would have rather read a few of the six or seven books on my personal reading list in its place.
-Michael Marandino
Although I did struggle through the beginning of this book as I see many other people did, I actually enjoyed it as I got further into the plot. The long and drawn out description of Edgon Heath seemed ridiculous at the time, but really gave me a feel for how the people felt there, surrounded by such dreariness all the time. And even though Eustacia is a very easily unlikable character, I cannot say I hate her. If anything, I would just say that she was annoying to me. There were some points in the story where I just wanted to reach into the story and say stop! Especially with how clever she is and how much motivation she has to go somewhere and do something with her life, I was disappointed that she thought she needed a man to accomplish this. Why couldn’t she just go out on her own? She was certainly manipulative enough to be able to lie herself into or out of any situation. If she were not so in love with the idea of love, she would not only have been better off, but I feel she would have been a better person too.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you phrased that! "If she were not so in love with the idea of love." I agree, I think she feels so lonely and isolated in the heath that she is longing for the feeling of being in love, not necessarily a particular person. The only reason I personally gave her a little leeway for not setting out by herself is because in this time period, women were expected to be married, and it would have been very difficult for her to make her way by herself. While she certainly has high aspirations, Eustacia doesn't strike me as the type of person eager to struggle her way through life, and was probably scared at the prospect. To me, that says more about the society she was raised in than her character itself. But I agree; it was frustrating at times to watch! I kept waiting for her to just take matters into her own hands and leave.
DeleteI was a little confused as to how Thomasin actually felt about Venn. At first I thought that she was marrying him only out of sympathy and practicality (as she desperately wanted to fill the void in her family for her baby's sake), but Hardy later describes Thomasin as very happy and 'red in the face' during her wedding. What do you guys think…did Thomasin marry out of necessity or did she truly fall in love with Venn?
ReplyDeleteI think Thomasin really loved Venn, but his occupation was so undesirable that she was affraid to be with him at first. In the beginning of the story it also stated that Mrs. Yeobright wasn't his greatest fan either, and that may have differed her as well.
DeleteThis is going to seem like a very strange connection, but hear me out. While reading this book, I couldn’t help but sing “Part of Your World” whenever Eustacia was mentioned, because Eustacia and Ariel from “The Little Mermaid” are extremely similar. Both want to explore places they had only ever heard of, and crave to associate with people outside of those that they’ve been exposed to. Both of them try to link themselves to men that are part of that other world--Eustacia to Clym, and Ariel to Eric. Neither of them truly know the men that they “love” before they decide to invest their all toward pursuing them, but fall in love with the knowledge that they represent everything that they ever dreamed of.
ReplyDeleteGranted, Ariel and Eustacia have different endings if you’re looking at Disney’s version of “The Little Mermaid”, but if you read Hans Christian Andersen’s original text, you’ll find that both Ariel and Eustacia kill themselves. When Prince Eric marries another, Ariel jumps into the sea and drowns herself. Both women, when faced with the knowledge that they’ll never fulfill their dreams, are torn from the men they invested so much to, and that they are sentenced to suffer through lives that they think are inadequate, decide to take their own lives instead of living in misery.
There are more parallels within the two stories, but the main point is that both women were unsatisfied with their lives, dreamed of places bigger and better, and aspired to get there by using men as their vehicles.
This connection made me realize that these are examples of a common theme that crosses multiple medias--people want what they don’t have. You can see this in many stories, and is something that everyone can relate to. Eustacia wanted Damon when she was married to Clym, she wanted to go to Paris when she was in the heath, and she wanted freedom when she realized that her marriage wasn’t what she expected.
In this sense, I don’t think it was possible to Eustacia to ever be happy. Even if she had Clym, and they had gone to Paris, I feel like she would have been unsatisfied. Paris may not have met her expectations, her love for Clym may not have been as passionate as she had hoped, etc. I feel like no matter what circumstances Eustacia was in, it wouldn’t have made a difference because she would always focus on, and glorify, what she was lacking. She would always be looking beyond what she had, to something better which she didn’t. What do you guys think? Do you think she could have ever really been happy, even if she had gone to Paris or married Damon?
Just some food for thought.
Shannen, this is such a good connection!
DeleteI don't think she ever would have been happy. It's not her way to be happy, and it's almost as if she gets a painful yet appealing kind of pleasure from wanting after things she doesn't have. She doesn't appreciate the moment, and instead, sadistically keeps longing for things she can't have. In fact, as soon as she has something, like Wildeve or Clym, she stops wanting it, and starts looking for something else unattainable.
So no. She would never have been happy.
Serena Lotreck
This comparison killed me! I laughed, but it's also so spot on, especially considering Ariel's original story, like you mentioned. Also, like you and Serena said, I don't think Eustacia would have ever been happy. I think her nature was to seek more and more, and by the time she'd gotten what she'd been longing for, she'd lost interest. So she could've married Damon and moved to Paris, and her mind would still only wander to that which eluded her. In that way, I think she becomes both more and less likable though. On one hand, she's insatiable and materialistic. But on the other hand, I think there's a part of all of us that really craves something new and exciting - it's just part of human nature. It's not so hard to relate at least somewhat to her struggle. Maybe that's just me searching for redeeming qualities, though. I still haven't really decided exactly how I feel about her. In any case, I agree that she could never be satisfied, regardless of what she had or where she went.
Deleteabsolutely, totally and completely love this novel (except for Aftercourses as I mentioned above).
ReplyDeleteThis very first thing I noticed about this novel, quite obviously, was the description. Thought at times it was incredibly difficult to get through, this was actually one of my favorite aspects of the book. It was so incredibly different from anything else I've ever read. The best way I can think to describe it is that it's almost as if Hardy isn't creating the story out of his own mind, but rather merely documenting observations of a series of events that he happens to be watching. It doesn't feel as though he is the mastermind that is behind the plot or surroundings, but rather that he is an innocent bystander in them. It is especially evident in the description of the heath. It's as if he is pointing a video camera at the heath and showing us the product of his observations, describing exactly what he not only saw, but felt, while he was present there.
Diggory Venn was one of my favorite characters simply because I liked him. If he was a real person, I would be friends with him, so I really liked him. However, he wasn't particularly interesting. He was one of the happier and definitely one of the sanest characters.
I loved Clym up until he became a whiny, self-deprecating brat. But up until that point, he was one of my favorites. The description of him when his character is first introduced was intriguing to me, especially the description of his face. "As for his look, it was a natural cheerfulness striving against depression from without, and not quite succeeding. The look suggested isolation, but it revealed something more. As is usual with bright natures, the deity that lies ignominiously chained within an ephemeral human carcase shone out of him like a ray." From that moment I was intrigued with him, because I found him somewhat like myself. For a portion of the book he was one of the best humans, albeit he was almost too good and altruistic from the start. I was slightly annoyed at how he viewed Eustacia, playing into the underlying sexism that governs the whole book. But after the death of his mother, his wallowing in self-pity and outlandish reasoning about who “killed” his mother (is it news to Clym that snake bites kill people), he really, really started to get on my nerves.
(continued)
DeleteOne of my favorite quotes from the whole book is also from the description of Clym. "When standing before certain men the philosopher regrets that thinkers are but perishable tissue, the artist that perishable tissue has to think." This is just another example of the fabulous way Hardy crafts his description. Why would a quote like this ever be included in the description of a man's face? I love how at every available moment Hardy turns what could be mundane, just a literal description, into some deeper reflection on life which we ourselves would not have put together, but leaves moments, like Eustacia's feelings of love and desire, that could be made into examinations on human nature and the wrong that permeates it, alone for us to decipher ourselves.
Hardy’s style is different from anything else I’ve read, even those that I’ve read in previous English classes from that time period. For the first few days of rereading the first three pages trying to decipher it, I wasn’t thrilled. But as I got further into the description, and the first characters appeared, I really started to get into it. I was taking sides, agreeing and disagreeing with characters.
I was, however, made aware of something that annoyed me for the rest of my time reading the book. I probably never would have focused on it, but I’m really glad Molli pointed it out to me. The book is intrinsically sexist. Now, I am willing to forgive that because it’s really good otherwise, and it is from hundreds of years ago before feminism was really a thing. However, it was frustrating. The only female character in the whole book, besides Susan Nunsch who really doesn’t count, who is defined by something other than their quest for a man, is Mrs. Yeobright. Eustacia and Thomasin are solely defined by their quest for a man (though Eustacia’s quest for a man was really a quest for adventure), whereas the male characters, most specifically Clym, are defined by their love and also the other facets of their lives.
Overall, though. I loved this book.
Serena Lotreck
To Serena's point that I apparently came up with about the book being sexist- When I first read the book my reaction was that the main female characters are really defined by their search for a man, I have to say after looking closer at this book I disagree with past me. Eustacia is searching for so much more than just a husband. She is looking for an escape from the much hated heath, which she (accurately) predicts will be the death of her. She isn't simply searching for a man. She is searching for an escape. She is obviously lonely, and idealizes the concept of love simply because she thinks it is the solution to her loneliness. As Hardy says, "She seemed to long for the abstraction called passionate love more than for any particular lover."
DeleteTo me, part of the reason that I loved Eustacia is because she was real. She wasn't a typical, idealized, Victorian era housewife. She was flawed, selfish, bitter, and infuriating, but completely real. Her quest was always about her. It was always about freeing herself from her prison in any way she had to. She was a strong, intelligent, and independent character who, even once married, never gave up her power. Especially for this time period, her character feels almost revolutionary to me, and she shows the psychological effects of a society that made women feel trapped.
To make her character stand out more, the contrast of Thomasin is needed. While yes, Thomasin's main concern in this book is finding a man, she represents society's ideal woman of the time. She, perhaps unknowingly, allows herself to be used by others, and is defined by her role as a wife. However, she is necessary to show the radicalness of Eustacia's character.
First and foremost, Eustacia was an amazingly annoying character and lives up to the rumors of being a witch. I tried to sympathize with her and her desire to leave, but that got hard around the time she said she loved Wildeve because he knew when to leave her. I don't believe she ever loved any of the men like she claimed, but rather loved what they gave her. Wildeve was a triumph over Thomasin and Clym is just her ticket to Paris. She was the embodiment of “selfish love.” She’d probably latch on to any man who said he could take her anywhere but the Heath. Hardy also mentions her “Olympian” qualities and how she would fit in with the gods and I can't help agree. Between Hera stringing Zeus up by his toes for cheating and Aphrodite running around with Areas because he’s pretty than Hephaestus, she would fit right into the general sense of craze.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Diggory Venn is the embodiment of selfless love. Even though he loves Thomasin, he encourages Eustacia to let go of Wildeve so that Thomasin can be happy. While he still has his own motives, he's able to put Thomasin first and seems to be the only character in the book who does not toy with other people to get what they want.
The end was a bit too sunshiney considering two people end up dead and one spends his life in sadness, but I suppose their happiness was deserved after all they went through to get to that point. It was all a little A Midsummer Night’s Dream-y what with convoluted love triangles where everyone is in love with each other but no one is in love with the right person. Granted, there's a lack of magical eyelid dust and a bit more death in Return of the Native, but there still some similarities.
Just a few thoughts on the book as a whole:I don't think I've ever hated reading a book so much in my life. Everything about this book seriously annoyed me and took everything in me to finish.
ReplyDeleteEustacia bothered me so very much her character I think repeatedly contradicted herself. She played off as such a free spirit and self empowered women but she let everyone else dictate her entire life. I understand that she didn't have the money to just go out and leave, but her character chose mediocrity over trying something new to achieve what she wanted. I was very happy when Clym refused to go back to Paris and it made her more miserable. (Not that I'm just happy to see someone so upset but it kills me when someone has the potential to do better and they mope and do nothing to help themselves.) I was happy that Wildeve died too because Tamsin deserved so much better than him.
Lastly though, the only character that did not bother me at all and was a big reason I was able to continue reading was Vann. He was such a sweet guy and he actually worked his way to happiness. The gambling scene between him and Wildeve was honestly my most favorite part of the book and made me enjoy it for a change.
In my opinion the ending was so far off from how the rest of the book went. Wrapping it up with Clym being this happy little preacher was a terrible idea. I mean this was the guy who still blamed himself for the death of his mother, Eustacia, and probably Wildeve to just be all alone and then suddenly fine with that did not make any sense to me.
I am lost in this book right now. I know that we've been told that it starts off slow but man! So far I've really enjoyed the descriptions that the author uses. Makes the whole book come alive in a sense. I just wish I knew what parts to skim through so I could get through it.
ReplyDeleteThat's all for now the rest of you have already asked my questions.
I think I may have spotted a little symbolism in this story. I think Thomas Hardy was crafty in the sense that the environment is symbolic of the characters' morals and behaviors. Hardy describes the environment as desolate and brutal, much like the mindset of the characters. With Damon and Eustacia going back and forth, they are competing against one another for "love". It is almost like a competition in which the one with the better partner wins. They are treating the other characters as trophies. The harsh environment could be symbolic of their views about love.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that Mr. MacArthur had mentioned how Holden Caulfield liked The Return of the Native. I think that is rather fitting for him to enjoy. Holden’s life was pretty messy, much like how the characters in The Return of the Native’s are. As Jenny (I believe she was the first person to say that on the blog) noted previously, everything that could go wrong, did. This is like The Catcher in the Rye in a way, as Holden’s life spirals out of control. He was living with the guilt of his little brothers death for starters, and then he gets pretty annoyed when the girl he likes goes on a date with a guy he thinks is a phony. This is slightly reminiscent of The Return of the Native as everyone ends up with the wrong partner. It is also evident throughout The Catcher in the Rye that Holden is depressed. He can probably relate to a few of the characters due to his emotional distress. I would venture to say that he could understand the depressive struggles that Diggory Venn had to endure when he was denied marriage to Thomasin.
ReplyDelete-Jacob Burns
The beginning of the novel was very slow and I struggled through it, like many other people, however once further in the novel it started to get better. Personally I did not enjoy the novel as much as our other assignments. I thought that the long description of Egdon Heath was frankly ridiculous and at times I skimmed the pages. However once the characters started to appear it became better. One character that I disliked during the course of the novel was Eustacia as she was very self centered and tried to do things that were for her best interest, especially those that would help her achieve her move to Paris. Now that I have completed the novel, to be honest, I think I would have a similar attitude and try to get out of Egdon Heath. Also I have to sympathize for Clym. Everything that could possible go wrong for him went wrong. His marriage went south, the school he wanted to start never got off the ground, his mother dies, and at the end of the novel he is all alone.
ReplyDeletePieter, I couldn't agree more with everything you said about this novel. First of all, just as it seems everyone else did, I dragged through the entirety of book one and the never-ending descriptions it contained. However, I did find that it picked up, as Mr. MacArthur promised it would. Once all the characters were introduced and the plot became more and more developed, I found the novel much more pleasing to read. Furthermore, your opinion on Eustacia is a mirror image of the opinion I formed after reading the novel. I couldn't believe how self-centered she was. Whether it was marrying Clym to get away from the Heath or wanting to run away with the help of Wildeve, nearly all of her decisions were made after only thinking of herself and how she could escape the Heath. But just like yourself, I do not think I would have wanted to stay on the Heath, judging by the lengthy description that Hardy gives. However, that's besides the point. The fact is, I would struggle to find a time when she thought of somebody else and how it would impact their lives before making a decision, and it doesn't get much more self-centered than that. And as for your opinion on Clym, I find that I, once again, agree with you. Clym had everything going for him. He is first introduced as a successful man who lived in Paris, but wanted to do what would make him happy, which was creating a school. Then he meets Eustacia, who he quickly falls in love with. So there was Clym, on his way to his new found dream with the love of his life, and everything went downhill from there. Like you stated, everything that could have gone wrong, did go wrong. He went from being a man who was on his way to being very successful with a beautiful wife (on the outside), to a man who is nearly blind and alone. Not to mention that he lost his mother's love, and she died before he was able to get it back. Furthermore, he was more than once the victim of tragic coincidences. Because of all these unfortunate happenings, I couldn't help feeling sorry for him, and I'm sure most people felt the same way.
DeleteSo after having finished the book a few weeks back and having had some time to reflect upon it I feel that I now hold a solid opinion on the book. First off, the book starts slow, VERY slow. Almost the entirety of book one, while necessary for establishing the setting and the long list of characters, was almost painful to read and left me going into book two with a sour attitude towards it. That isn’t to say I disliked the book however, as it ended up being my personal favorite read this summer, much to my surprise. I never would have thought going into book two that I would actually end up with such an attachment to the story and specifically the characters. What this book hinged upon was the complex relationships between the cast of characters who themselves had unique and different personalities and wants, and I believe that Hardy’s ability to create characters who felt real and had real feeling interactions with each other is what saved this book for me. We see in this story how these characters are far from perfect and often times make mistakes, and while some mistakes had no real consequences others changed the story in drastic ways. And while all of these characters very multifaceted, dynamic, and well designed, some stood out as clear personal favorites to me.
ReplyDeleteOf the five central characters I would have to say the Thomasin was my least favorite as she seemed only to exist as the object of Wildeve’s and Venn’s affection and fuel the rivalry between the two, coupled with very rarely appearing at all after the first two or so books she merely fades into the background until the very end. Ranking above Thomasin would have to be Clym, arguably the novel’s main character. Clym suffers from a similar problem that I had with Thomasin in that after he marries Eustacia and resolves the complicated love web (mostly) he has no real desires other than become a teacher and while this is a noble goal, him spending much of the book in his house reading and rarely interacting with anyone other than his wife makes for a somewhat boring character. Clym’s understandable yet still somewhat annoying change in personality after the deaths of his wife and mother also made him one of my least favorites as he spends much of the end of the book moping in a deep depression and blaming himself for things he really couldn’t control. Clym does redeem himself a little in the end as he decides to use his understanding of hardship to help others when he decides to become a preacher, but he still seems to me a promising character who ended up being a disappointment. Eustacia is the first of the characters I didn’t end up disappointed in by the end, but she still falls flat with me. Perhaps it was because I had already read Hedda Gabler by the time I started this book and I already read about the “discontent women/housewife” character but nevertheless she was interesting as the center of almost all the conflicts in the story whether she was involved or not in them. Were it not for Venn, Wildeve would have easily been my favorite character in this book. Wildeve is the closest this book has to a villain, often the characters I like the most in any story, and he is so complex in his personality, morals, and desires. Half of what makes Wildeve so enjoyable to me is he is a man of poor spirit, and he knows he is. He spends the entire book cheating on Thomasin with Eustacia and knows that it is a horrible thing to do but still cannot stop himself as he lacks the strength to control his desires. He knows what the right thing to do is for everyone rather than just himself but he is so selfish he is unable to do it still, very much the opposite of Venn. And his interactions with Venn are the most enjoyable throughout the book as they are so different and such fierce rivals. Impulsive, arrogant, selfish, and weak, Wildeve is a very interesting character.
(cont.)
DeleteWhich brings me to the last character on the list and my favorite, Venn. I can’t really pinpoint what I like about Venn so much but it most likely has to do with how he is the polar opposite of Wildeve, Venn is almost entirely selfless and almost always works for the greater good, even if it is at the cost of his own personal gain. Venn is also an almost spectral figure in this book, only showing up at opportune moments to solve whatever problems (usually created by Wildeve) arise and quickly vanishing again, most times with the majority of the cast unaware of his interjection. Venn also shines in my absolute favorite part of the book when he beats Wildeve in the game of dice and wins all the money back for Thomasin, a moment I found myself fully enjoying. Perhaps it was the fact that while reading any time he inexplicitly showed up you knew he had some crazy plan to fix the current conflict or the fact that he and Wildeve despised each other so much, but Venn ranks number one in my ranking of the main cast.
All and all, despite its slow start, Thomas Hardy’s Return of the Native was a surprisingly enjoyable summer reading book that I thoroughly enjoyed. Its colorful cast of characters and believable story along with its interesting method of storytelling made it the best book I’ve read in a very long time.
-Ian Cook
After reading the first book of The Return of the Native I thought it was going to be a painful experience to finish the rest. However, as I kept reading, it started to become more and more interesting. I found myself thoroughly enjoying this book. While reading, three main ideas seemed to be prevalent throughout: The Heath as a living entity, pride, and superstition.
ReplyDeleteEgdon Heath is characterized as a powerful being with its own wants and beliefs. It is the main source of the livelihood of those that live there, giving little reason for anyone to leave, creating this isolated rural community. The people who live there also seem to worship the Heath, which shows in their pagan-like rituals, of which nature is a central focus. Those who live symbiotically with the Heath live their lives comfortably, neither rich nor poor. The trouble comes when characters wish for more than what the Heath can provide, or see themselves as more important. The prime examples are Eustacia, Mrs.Yeobright and to a lesser extent Wildeve. Eustacia treated the Heath as an enemy. She did not care much for the people who lived there, or for their rituals. The only thing she cared about was leaving to go to Paris or other civilized cities. Many on the Heath viewed her as a witch, particularly Susan Nunsuch, or as just an antithesis to the Heath had to offer. Eustacia ended up drowning the same night she planned on leaving, as there was coincidentally a large storm. Mrs.Yeobright did not have the same feeling of Eustacia as wanting more than the Heath. She did however hold the view that she was above the Heath and its inhabitants, as she was of a higher class than them. Her only real interest was in her family, and she really did not care for any of the traditions or events of the Heath, only taking part to basically pity the lower class inhabitants who lived there. Her life was also taken by the Heath, dying from both exhaustion and the bite from a poisonous snake. This shows the Heat as a living entity taking revenge on those who go against it. While Wildeve's beliefs were very similar to both Eustacia and Mrs.Yeobright, I believe his character falls more under the next theme, which is pride. (Continued below)
(Continued from above)
DeletePride very closely relates to the Heath being a living character as several characters’ pride was the main cause of their beliefs of being above the rural lifestyle. In this novel pride is the main driving force of the downfall of Eustacia, Mrs.Yeobright and Wildeve. They all believed themselves to be the most important people on the Heath, and more important than the Heath itself. The three characters with the most obvious sense of self-importance were the only three characters to have died in the book. I believe the reason Clym was the only one to survive the night Eustacia and Wildeve died, was because he was the one who most readily put aside his pride. Clym originally left the Heath to bigger and better things that were available in Paris. He returned and decided to pursue a more noble pursuit of teaching. He was stuck in the middle of people who all believed themselves to be the center of the universe, but he managed to overcome his pride. This is evident in his choice to become a preacher, spreading positive beliefs and ideas to try and make the world a better place. Venn is the only character to show little to no pride, only there to help those around him, despite being a feared individual because of his work as a reddleman. He was also the only character to end up better than when he left off, having married the women he loved and living a happy life.
Superstition also plays a large role on the Heath. The most obvious example is Susan Nunsuch and her stabbing Eustacia and burning the wax effigy. It is also evident in the coin given to Johnny Nunsuch meant to ward off evil spirits, and the common belief in the relation of the reddleman to the devil. Most of the beliefs in superstition are shown in a negative view. For Example Susan Nunsuch comes across as crazy to the readers, and how despite being feared by the locals, Venn ends up being a selfless and kind character. The death of Eustacia also refutes superstitious beliefs, as a witch would not die from drowning. This relates to the old test to drown a person to determine if they were a witch, if they drowned they were not. The paganistic rituals of the people living on the Heath were shown as more important as they related to the Heath as a central figure in the story and to the people living there.
I believe Hardy was trying to stress the importance of nature and strong morals while also demonizing negative attributes such as pride and belief in superstition. I ended up very much enjoying this book and the many ideas Thomas Hardy expressed in it.
I found The Return of the Native rather depressing and despairing. While this may have been Hardy’s writing style, I was not very fond of it. While many of you mentioned that this book was “hard to get into” and a “slow read”, I feel that this is due to the style and mood that the writing is composed in. Everybody likes a happy, upbeat book, but a desolate book is significantly more difficult to get into. In addition, some of the characters seemed to have faulty attitudes, specifically Eustacia. She seemed drastically selfish. I was given the impression that she was more focused on her travels and money than her man. It also appeared that everything went wrong. Although at points, the book led me to have some hope in things going right, it seemed as if I was constantly let down.
ReplyDeleteSo after talking with some of my friends, there was a 50/50 split between those who actually enjoyed the book and those who despised it. Personally, I felt the book was mediocre for several reasons, and unfortunately the few redeemable qualities that the book had were not enough to save the novel. For starters, we all agreed that there was just too much "fluff" found within the text, this being extensive descriptive text or dialogue that serves more as "filler text" and less as a meaningful addition to the book. Truly, I believe the book could have been written in half the number of pages and still retain all the important plot points and themes. Does that mean I just wanted a bare skeleton for a book? No, but I also don't enjoy being led through multiple chapters that really had no impact on the build-up or end result of the story. Sure, there are some who could argue that these "filler" chapters "reinforce the themes of the book", but did they really need that much reinforcement? I felt that the majority were fairly obvious, and any more reinforcement would just be like beating a dead horse. I wish I could say that I enjoyed the book more, but unfortunately this fluffy soap-opera did not do it for me. Maybe one day I'll pick it up again, but today is not that day. - Jordan Shea
ReplyDeleteHey Jordan, you're probably the first person whom I agree with wholeheartedly. You took the words right out of my mouth!
Delete-Michael Marandino
The irony is that I was actually going to reply to your post about how this book is not a true classic, because I also fully agreed with you. I did say that this book had a few redeemable qualities; for one, the diction was very advanced and the author was very well spoken. It seemed that for every chapter, there was about a dozen words that I had to look up. Does that mean this is a negative quality of the book? Not at all, because now I am better for it and I can come away with a wider vocabulary. Another positive quality that I found was that while I did detest the character Eustacia, she evoked such a strong emotion out of me that I do have to give props to Mr. Hardy. The fact that she corrupts the idea of what love is (much like Hedda Gabler) by being shallow and manipulative to Wildeve towards the beginning of the novel made me despise her for the rest of the book. One of the first events that made me truly despise her was when Wildeve came to her claiming that Thomasin no longer had interest in him. To this, she basically said "well if a peasant like Thomasin has no interest in Wildeve, what does that make me? Why should I have any interest in him?". If you truly love someone, it should be because you admire the person that they are, not the person that other people see them as. Eustacia was pretty much scum to me for the whole book, but yet I continued reading because I wanted so badly to see what would happen to her. However, I do still hold the idea that there was just too much filler text in this novel, and it would be hard for me to try and get into it again even if I tried. -- Jordan Shea
DeleteDon't get me wrong though, Wildeve wasn't much better than her; unfortunately, just because Eustacia wronged Wildeve in the beginning doesn't make her any more appealing to me as a character. Eustacia was shallow because she so casually played with the emotions of other characters (even Charley!), and Wildeve was scum because he was a cheating dirt bag. Believable characters, but very hard to like. -- Jordan Shea
DeleteIt's strange to see how people can have differing opinions on characters, I find the worst, most unlikable characters tend to be my favorites because of how comedic they end up being. I found Eustacia much more likeable than Thomasin or Clym because she was so unlikable yet so believable, that and other other two don't do all that much for a large portion of the book. All of the conflicts in this story always end up tracing back to Eustacia, most of the time due to her manipulating ways, which was what I thought was so interesting about her. I also found Wildeve to be a very likeable character because he was so unlikable. Like Eustacia almost all the book's problems have to do with him, but rather than it being because he's manipulative they occur because he's just a horrible, selfish person. He and Eustacia are both selfish and unable to control their desires and feelings, which makes them such a stain on the community of Egdon Heath, and makes them so enjoyable to me.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this was a very difficult story to become interested in, at least at first. I really disliked Hardy's excessive descriptions and scene-building. There is certainly a level of necessity in describing a setting but Hardy definitely pushed this beyond the limit. It seemed to me as if he was rambling and actually detracting from the plotline of the story itself to a point where confusion was promoted. Once the story got rolling though, it played out similarly to a soap opera with the very dramatic characters and storylines. Eustacia, who is rumored to be the town's witch, eventually gets married to Clym, the son of the very proper Mrs. Yeobright because she longs for a life in Paris, far away and exciting. Eustacia believes that Clym will be able to provide this for her. When Clym runs into financial troubles and is unable to fulfill Eustacia's wishes, despite sacrificing his relationship with his mother, Eustacia rekindles her relationship with her married, ex-lover. Eustacia truly is a selfish, cowardly, and vile character who, strangely enough, transformed this story from dry and boring to enticing and passionate. I really did despise Eustacia and the way she treated those around her in her self-righteous and entitled demeanor, but she definitely did add interest and depth to the otherwise bland novel.
ReplyDelete-Aziz Sandhu
Aziz, I also noticed how the events of the book were similar to a soap opera. You are so right about Eustacia being the core of the drama. Without her, the plot line would've been missing some of the main twists and turns that made the book so dramatic.
DeleteI think that both Eustacia and Hedda both kind of chose their fate at the end of the their stories. Both of them chose a life of financial stability, Hedda marrying the man who was supposed to get a teaching liscense and Eustacia going after Wildeve after Wildeve gained inherits a fortune. Both characters made mistakes along their stories that led to their deaths. Eustacia not letting Mrs. Yeobright in, resulting in Mrs. Yeobright's suicide and Clym leaving her. This causes her to run away and drown. The only difference is Hedda had control over her death and Eustacia didn't.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Eustacia's death was a mix of suicide, as well as a result of her surrounding. Eustacia did drown, and I agree with those who previously stated that she committed suicide. I do feel, however, that she was forced to commit suicide in a way. She was rumored to be a town witch and she quarreled with Clym's mother constantly (and eventually pursued a course of actions that led to her death). She also loathed the heath and even when she tried to leave it, she probably wouldn't have been happy no matter where she went. It is also important to remember that she felt awful for the death of her mother in law. I think that the non-nourishing environment that she was in was partially responsible for her death. I also think that there was a perfect storm that brewed up when she died. If I remember correctly, the weather was awful and she was at a low point. With all of the said factors, there was no way that she wouldn't have killed herself when she was so depressed.
Delete-Jacob Burns
Sarah- I could not help but draw the same parallel to the two stories as well. Although these are two different stories entirely and written in different forms of text (one being a play and the other a novel) I was still shocked by the similarity of the choices made by the leading women. Both women's motives were to escape the bleak marriages they became locked into, but both are seemingly punished for their actions. Neither Hedda nor Eustacia were particularly likable, and that made both of their deaths easy to stomach. Both women could have made more admirable choices regarding their situations. Their dramatic backstabbing and secrets are obviously the wrong ways to deal with their situations, so their deaths almost seem deserved. Hedda's suicide was a result of her unhappiness, as was Eustacias death. The only difference is as you said, Hedda chose hers while Eustacias was an accident.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of the book that I found interesting was that despite all of the plot twists over the course of the book, the logical end of the story for each main character did in fact occur. The two most likable characters, Diggory Venn and Thomasin, ended up finally getting married to each other in the end. They lacked the obvious character flaws of the other characters, and were the only characters who were happy in the end. This was made possible because Damon Wildeve died attempting to save his true love, Eustacia. As many people have commented, Eustacia's death was the logical end to her story, and it was only fitting that she take her lover with her. Finally, Clym ended up alone. It is the logical end because he pushed away the two people who cared about him the most, Eustacia and his mother. He refused to apologize to his mother before she died, and his resulting guilt led him to push away Eustacia. It was only fitting that he ended up with nobody.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on most of your points Eric, however I disagree about Clym. The fight with his mother ensued due to their differences of opinions: He wanted to change professions and become a teacher while his mother wanted something better for him. Also the had their rift because his mother was not a fan of Eustacia (she had a right to that opinion) but that still was the cause of their separation not him pushing her away. He did take a very long time to try and mend the situation however he did in the end make the effort. Clym was also trying to better the world around him. He gave up his life in Paris to try to become a teacher for students with low income parents and was satisfied with very little. I think he was a genuine man at heart and didn't deserve to end up alone.
Delete-Emily Warrington
I find Eustacia to be utterly unlikable. She is your classic gold digger of a girl. She uses her beauty to extort thing out of people. For example, when Clym asks her to marry him, she stipulates that they must move to Paris and away from the Egdon Heath. Clym knows that she is only using him to escape, but he still decides to marry her.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I dislike Eustacia, I think Clym to a degree had to have known what he was getting into too, based on all of the hints she was dropping about Paris. He consciously let them go, so I really don't fully agree with calling her a gold-digger considering Clym didn't take complete action.
DeleteI agree that Eustacia is a gold-digger. Her intention from the first time she heard of him was to try to use him to escape the heath. She had an infatuation with him before they had even met, simply due to the fact that he was a worldly man from Paris. She may have fallen in love with his personality by the time they were wed, but her drive to get out of the heath is what I believe led her to start up the relationship in the first place.
DeleteAs for Clym, I'm unsure how conscious he was of Eustacia's true intentions. I think that he was slightly disturbed by Eustacia's constant hinting about Paris, but didn't let himself look too deeply into it for want of her love for him to be pure. Hopefully that made sense.
~Lora Giguere
Let me start by saying, after I had read the first book I thought I was never going to be able to finish because it started so slow, saying I hated would not be an understatement. But, with that said, after finishing the book, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteDamon I found to the character that annoyed me the most. He was so unlikeable and thought nothing of the repercussions of his actions. Damon just played with his wife, cast her off as if she was nothing when she has been a trusting and kind wife. He never actually loved her, or didn't act as though he did, he just wanted to get back at Venn and hurt Eustacia. When Damon was actually considering leaving his wife and newborn child, that was the straw for me that made me despise him. I can't say I was upset when he died.
Eustacia was also SO unlikeable. She used her beauty to get what she wants and she believes that she is better than everyone else and just used Clym because she believed he could get her to Paris, and then she pitied herself in stead of trying to fix her relationship with Clym.
I was extremely happy that Venn and Thomasin ended up getting married because in the beginning of the book I had hope that was who Thomasin was getting to end up with and I love when a book delivers a little bit of a happy ending. Also they both genuinely were nice and thoughtful people that deserved each other.
However I wish that Clym had ended up a little happier or with someone in his life because he is a good man that hasn't really done something so wrong that he can;t move on. I was just really disappointed with how his character handled everything.
I really agree with your comments. It made me so happy towards the ending when Venn and Thomasin got together. They were my two favorite characters throughout the story. With this being said, I really thought it was odd and unfitting for such an uplifting ending for those two characters. It made sense to me that Clym was alone because it kept with the tone and mood of the story, even though I also wished he was happier.
DeleteI agree that it fit with the tone of the book and that it life the ending isn't always tied up in a perfect little bow.I was just had such a liking for his character I would have preferred someone else to be unhappy.
DeleteI found this book to be deep, yet it had very clear ideas once thought about logically.
ReplyDeleteFor example, human nature was exemplified and exaggerated in the society that the novel created. Eustacia was a very selfish person, who's main motivation was, in fact, to leave the Heath. She was willing to use and abuse anyone that she could in order to get her wish of escaping. Because she didn't have the money or resources to go it alone, she decided to have Damon Wildeve accompany her to Paris. He was merely a source of money. Her actions are an exaggerated representation of the people of the Heath. For example, she also carried out the concept of "marry for status" rather than love. That was the entirety of her affections for Clym. It wasn't that he was attractive, it wasn't that he had a great personality that worked well with Eustacia's, it was the fact that he could someday get her out of the heath, and to a place like Paris! She goes so far as to say that she wonders what it would be like to marry out of love versus self-gain. She clearly grew up in a society where this idea was prevalent, so took these ideas onto herself.
During this book I felt almost bad for Eustacia because she seems so bored with her life and is looking for a way out, but back in that time period it is hard for women to make a future for themselves, so like Hedda, she uses people to try to get ahead. Then when this doesn't work she ends her life. I feel bad because you can see how desperately she wants to leave, and how very trapped she is. However, her being bored with life gives her no right to use and manipulate people. She drags down good people such as Thomasin and Clym and basically rips apart their lives to try to make hers better, which to me is unforgivable.
ReplyDeleteI was really happy to see Venn and Thomasin get married in the end though. After watching everything go wrong, it was nice to see something finally go right for a change. I also really wanted them from the start of the book to end up together, so when they finally did I was pleased.
In my opinion, Hedda and Eustacia are in the same boat. I do enjoy Hedda's character a considerable amount more than Eustacia though. There is something about Hedda's attitude that makes her more entertaining to read about. Eustacia just seems to be whiny, and she mopes about a lot feeling bad for herself.
Lastly, I have a question. Did Thomasin have to marry Damon because her reputation was at risk, or did she love him still, or was it a little bit of both? At first she seemed to love him, but after the wedding fell through the first time it seemed as if she agrees to marrying him a second time just to save face.
I thought that both Eustacia and Hedda married for the wrong reasons. They both based their marriages on shallow qualities and ended up being unhappy. Had they married for love rather than money, I think they would have avoided their conflicts that eventually lead to suicide. I think this is one of the central themes of both Hedda Gabler and The Return of the Native. The common theme that all that glitters is not gold is portrayed because neither woman is happy or content with financial prosperity.
ReplyDeleteAs we have all agreed it seems, these two girls were very unlikeable because of their motives when using people. Eustacia used her beauty as a manipulative weapon in order to get what she wanted and acquire including money. She was the classic gold-digger. Hedda also used her beauty to manipulate people, but also her overall ability to use other people's secrets against them. The two woman were manipulative and very questionable motives.
ReplyDeleteI am in complete agreement with Jordan when he says that this novel is one in which you either loved or hated. Personally, at the beginning, I found The Return of the Native to be quite difficult to become interested in. I thought that Hardy used unnecessarily long descriptions at the start which made it exceptionally difficult to stay focused and at times made me want to stop reading altogether. However, once I got into the plot, I became thoroughly fascinated with Eustacia. Although Eustacia is an extremely self-centered character, I was intrigued to continue reading and to see what she was going to do next and if she was going to reach her goal of moving to Paris.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Connor and Cam on their ideas on Eustacia and Hedda. I believe that if they had their morals set straight from the beginning, they would've ended up alright. Cam, you had it spot on! While reading, the book seemed to be very complicated with in-depth themes and hidden meanings. It was clear by the end of the book that this was not the case at all. To gain this understanding, I had to take a step back and a bit of a "from the outside in" perspective. The author wasn't trying to over-complicate and fill the book with as much information as possible. In fact, once you read it you see that it's not very challenging to understand after-all.
ReplyDeleteOverall, out of the three works we had to read this summer, this was my least favorite. However, by the end of the book it turned out alright.
Simply put, this book was a tough one to tackle. Thomas Hardy’s style of writing took some getting used to to say the least. At first (and by “at first” I mean for the entire first book), it seemed needlessly wordy, and I found myself more than a little tempted to skip entire sections for their seemingly endless descriptions. After some time, though, I began to find the descriptive quality of Hardy’s writing endearing and thoughtful. The words were clearly carefully chosen, and, after all, the novel was published in 1878. It goes without saying that the writing wouldn’t exactly reflect the writing we’re used to today. Writing style aside, the story itself was not uninteresting, but it was frustrating. It seemed to be composed merely of instance after instance of poor timing and poor judgment. I found myself irritated more often than not.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Eustacia goes, I can’t say she was an ultra-likable character, but she was certainly captivating. Self-centered, materialistic, moody? Sure, but you have to consider that she’s only a teenager. And she feels trapped by her surroundings. She may not have gone about expressing her frustration appropriately, but I find myself sympathetic to her desire for something more – something beyond the confines of the heath. You can hardly blame her for wanting to see some excitement. Her obsession with Paris and wealth and social climbing seems sort of natural for a young woman who is imprisoned in a life that can’t provide for her what she so craves.
A perhaps less consequential detail that I couldn’t help but pay mind to was the chapter titles. At first glance, they seem mostly simple and straightforward. Some were just that – for example, the title of Book 5 Chapter 7 is “The Night of the Sixth of November.” But a title like that of Book 3 Chapter 4 (“An Hour of Bliss and Many Hours of Sadness”) seems to say something more. This chapter was one I came back to after I’d read further in the book. It’s a scene describing a meet-up between Clym and Eustacia pre-marriage, but their brief interaction in the chapter mirrors the path of their eventual marriage with just a fleeting moment of joy before taking a darker, tenser turn. The chapter title, then, appears to foretell the pair’s failed marriage.
I'm not gonna lie in saying I enjoyed this book and thought it was good literature because I really can stand and say I didn't. I don't mind the length since reading is usually fast and it has no consequence on me as to when I have to do it. But, this book was painful for me. Regardless of the slow start, the book seemed to just drag on. Based on attention to detail and trends that were carried on throughout the book, I predicted the ending around halfway through so I didn't really have any more desire to read it. It was pain staking. It was very hard for me to find a likable character because to me, they all seemed like backstabbers. I don't discredit the author at all, but I guess if I had the opportunity, I would read it again to try to enjoy the pure literature of it, not just to finish it to complete an objective. There was no turning point in the book for me where I wanted to read the lines faster to get to the end. I watched exactly what I had thought was gonna happen, happen at an extremely elongated pace. I guess what I am saying is that it was OK. It wasn't the worst book I have read, but it certainly is not the best book I have ever read.
ReplyDeleteOne character who I disliked extremely was Eustacia. No matter what any man did for her, it was never good enough. Wildeve always gave me a bad feeling, which in the end, was proven correct, yet I could not help but feel bad for him. He would have sold his soul to make Eustacia happy. As soon as he thinks that Eustacia is all his, she decides that she wants to play hard to get and he is no longer adequate. He is left stranded and alone, despite the fact that he involved himself in a shallow marriage. After Wildeve, Eustacia jumped on Clym's "love wagon." He was the new talk of the town so he had to be hers. So she jumped to shallow conclusions and married him off a whim of going to Paris. When his vision started to falter, she just decided that he wasn't good enough anymore either because he couldn't make her his number one priority all the time. He needed her to make sure that he was well taken care of, but she couldn't even do that. In Clym's time of weakness, Eustacia decided that it would be better to chase after a married man, the same man who she dismissed previously. This made my skin crawl. When it was determined that Eustacia was the one who truly killed Mrs. Yeobright, and she had no remorse about it, I was threw with her. In my opinion, she got what she had coming for a long time. Karma comes around and she is definitely the example of that.
ReplyDeleteI realized I never posted my final thoughts and opinions on this novel upon having finished reading it. While I had some trouble getting into the novel, once I did, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Hardy, at times, is so perfectly descriptive, not only about the appearance of a character, but also that characters multifaceted personality. Furthermore, I enjoyed how Hardy made Egdon Heath not only a setting, but in my opinion, a character as well. I talked with my mother about this and she agreed that if the novel had taken place anywhere but Egdon Heath, the story would not have played out in the manner it did. In regard to the ending, I did not imagine it playing out in the way it did; however, I did expect some tragedy to befall Eustacia throughout the novel Hardy moved between notes of hope and despair. In conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed this novel.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how every character began the novel with a set goal in mind. Eustacia wanted to travel the world and go to Paris but her husband's goals got in the way of this. Clym wanted to start a school but his sudden blindness stopped him. Wildeve wanted to marry Eustacia but she ended up marrying Clym instead. And so on. The only character who appeared to get what he wanted was Venn, who was finally able to marry Thomasin. This is slightly ironic because at the beginning of the novel he was the only character whose goals seemed unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteI found Eustacia's character to be personally interesting for various reasons. Eustacia is no role model, but at the time I was struck by her restlessness and her longing for a better life. She plays with men’s emotions, she schemes, she’s selfish and she’s lazy. But she’s also stuck in a small town life she never asked for, and as a woman she sees no way to get out of it except through love. As her grandfather points out, she has the time and education to conjure up great fantasies about what her life could be like, and nothing less will satisfy her. A lot of qualities made her more and more interesting for me as the work progress. She is insecure, stubborn, a nonconformist, refuses to settle, and quite misunderstood. All of these things combined made her a 'perfect' fit for the setting that Hardy had created.
ReplyDeleteI can assume based on the posts that I finished this book much later than everyone else, but better late than never. Anyways, the warnings about the book starting slow were on point. It took me literally over two weeks to actually read more than ten pages at a time. However, once I got into the meat of the story I found it began to pick up and the story progressed much quicker. I found just reading about Eustacia and how her character developed definitely was the driving force in making this story more interesting. I wanted to know what devious act she would do next or how she would manipulate her next vicitm. Also the development of the relationships between the characters was always interesting. We see how all these different characters have this sort of messed up little secret love live that no one is clearly sharing and leads to many characters feeling unsatisfied with where they are. Overall this story turned out much better than I would have anticipated.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the beginning of the book was very dry with the long, tedious description of the Heath, I found the ending to be very interesting and full of excitement. When Eustacia tries to escape, she ends up drowning, along with Wildeve and almost Clym. Now I found it the most ironic and interesting that Eustacia died from the Heath itself as she was escaping. This is ironic because as much as she hates it there, she is so rooted there that she can't escape. The fact that she's not the only one to die or be affected by this event is just more exciting (as well as messed up) for the reader to enjoy. Due to all of this craziness at the end, Clym ends up in a bad situation and you can't help but feel bad for him. When it was al said and done, it was a very good ending in my opinion.
ReplyDelete