FREE ESSAY ON FATALISM IN TESS

FATALISM IN TESS

If written today, Tess of the d'urbervilles by Thomas Hardy may have been called Just Call
Me Job or Tess: Victim of Fate. Throughout this often bleak novel, the reader is forced
by Tess's circumstance to sympathize with the heroine (for lack of a better term) as life
deals her blow after horrifying blow. One of the reasons that the reader is able to do so
may be the fatalistic approach Hardy has taken with the life of the main character. 
Hardy writes Tess as a victim of Fate. This allows the reader to not blame her for the
things that happen around her. Much of the critical debate surrounding Tess centers
around this very point: Is Tess a victim? Are the things that happen to Tess beyond her
control or could she have fought her way out of her circumstances? Better yet, could
Hardy have written her out of her troubles or did his fatalistic approach to the novel
force him to ultimately sacrifice poor Tess? Further, Is Hardy's approach to the novel
and its main character truly fatalistic? In this essay, I will explore these questions
and the doctrine of Fatalism as it applies to Tess. 
Fatalism is defined in Websters Dictionary as the doctrine that all things take place by
inevitable necessity (175). Fatalism is the idea that all actions are controlled by Fate,
a primitive force that exists independent of human wills and outside of the controls of
power of a supreme being such as God because God ultimately has no power; he is a
creation of man who granted Him His power. Since He doesn't truly possess those powers,
he is left without the ability to alter circumstances. In short, if one subscribes to
this doctrine, you believe that Fate controls how things happen and God can do nothing to
save you, even Tess. 
Overall, Tess seems to go through life experiencing one negative event after another.
Fateful incidents, overheard conversations and undelivered letters work against her
ability to control the path her life takes. Tess's future seems locked up from the
beginning of the novel. As the story opens, we first meet her father and learn of Tess's
ancestry: Durbeyfield...are the lineal representative of the ancient and knightly family
of the d'Urbervilles...that renowned knight who came from Normandy...if knighthood were
hereditary, like a baronetcy...[John] would be Sir John (4). Somehow the reader knows
almost immediately that this knowledge isn't necessarily going to save the poor clan,
especially once we learn of the Fate of Tess's ancestors: Where do we d'Urbervilles live?
asks Sir John to the parson who responds, You don't live anywhere. You are extinct (5).
If one believes in the concept of natural selection, they probably realize rather quickly
that this isn't the best family from which to descend. 
Tess seems to sense her doomed state. This is evidenced in her identification with the
d'Urberville clan. Examples of this are her ability to see or hear the d'Urberville Coach
and her realization of her resemblance to the d'Urberville woman of the farmhouse at
Wellbridge: [Tess's] fine features were unquestionably traceable in these exaggerated
forms (277). These eerie events suggest that the fated d'Urberville blood undoubtedly
flows through her veins. 
Another example of Tess's awareness of being ill fated is when she meets Alec. Tess
laments about her fate: Had she perceived this meeting's import she might have asked why
she was doomed to be seen and converted that day by the wrong man, and not by some other
man, the right and desired one in all respects (75). She may not have known what to call
it, but she definitely applies the doctrine of Fatalism to herself which according to
author Leonard Doob is a telltale sign of a person who feels fated: When the principal is
judging himself [in this case, herself] and believes that fate is affecting him, his
perception is usually direct: he introspects, thinks, or meditates. But he may respond
indirectly when someone else, an observer,, gives him information about
himself...Fatalism by a principal, therefore, is a pessimistic inevitability doctrine
applied by him about himself to himself (7).
If Tess didn't start life feeling as though Fate was working against her, there are
plenty of incidents which could easily convince her: the death of the family horse
because of her negligence, the letter of confession that slipped beneath the carpet and
caused her to enter into marriage as a deception, the death of her father, and the return
of Angel just too late. Incident after incident seem to point to only one thing: Tess was
not meant to have a happy existence. 
So does Tess believe that God can save her? Throughout the novel, we see Tess moving away
from God. She is appalled by the evangelical sign-painter warning of damnation and tells
him that his teachings are horrible...cursing...killing refusing to believe that God said
such things (97). Later, realizing that God can't help her, Tess prays to Angel
confessing her new religion in a letter: It has been so much my religion ever since we
were married to be faithful to you in every thought and look (127). Even Angel seems
aware that God won't save Tess, thinking as he left, But, might some say, where was
Tess's guardian angel? Where was the providence of her simple faith? Perhaps, like that
other god of whom the ironical Tishbite spoke, he was talking, or he was pursuing, or he
was in a journey, or he was sleeping and not to be awaked (93). 
Other characters seem to buy into the idea of Fate as well. At the dairy, Angel chooses
Tess over the other dairymaids who love Angel as much as she does, but the dairymaids
can't be mad at Tess because it is Fate which has made the choice: 'Are you sure you
don't dislike me for it?' said Tess in a low voice...'I don't know--I don't know,'
murmured Retty Priddle. 'I want to hate 'ee; but I cannot!' That's how I feel,' echoed
Izz and Marian (12). 
Now we turn to the question of whether or not Hardy could have saved Tess or if he
believed that Fate had determined his choices. There were chances throughout the novel
for Hardy to give Tess a break and throw her a bone. He chose not to do so. Critic Arnold
Kettle see this decision as a necessity: Tess's death is artistically as inevitable as
Juliet's...She is up against a social situation that she can do nothing to resolve except
tragically, with drastic human loss (23). It seems that if Hardy was to have been true to
his art, he had no choice but to kill poor Tess. 
It would be an error in criticism, however, to claim without a doubt that Fate is the key
player in Tess's demise. In fact, It is actually rather easy to argue the other side of
the coin. Hardy's fatalism is extremely flawed. When in a pinch, he often relies on
coincidence to further beat Tess down: Alec showing up to save Tess after the party; his
reappearance as preacher; the letter slipping under the carpet; Angel slugging a man that
turns up later as Tess's boss. One could argue that this is all a bit too convenient.
Critic Dorothy Van Ghent seems to agree saying, We have all read or heard criticism of
Hardy for his excessive reliance upon coincidence in the management of his
narratives...he appears to be too much the puppeteer working wires or strings to make
events conform to his 'pessimistic' and 'fatalistic' ideas (56). Hardy ultimately plays
God in a novel where God is missing and throws negative circumstances in places where
they may not have been without his manipulation. But you still have to admit, on the
whole, our poor Tess still seems quite fated. 
So is Tess and ultimately Hardy responsible for the things that happen to our heroine or
is there something larger working against her? Critic Leon Waldoff writes that It seems
impossible to read the novel with a complete disregard of the idea that Tess is somehow
responsible for her fate...The narration is everywhere buttressed by words such as
'doomed', 'destined', and 'fated.' But the critical linking is never made and one remains
uncertain about why Tess's fate is inevitable (135). That moment of doubt and the
unresolved question is where the argument of Fatalism in Tess gains its momentum. 
One point that I feel must be made. Some argue, including my fellow classmates, that it
was destiny that bring Alec and Tess together. I would argue that it is not destiny but
Fate. Often used as a synonym for destiny, Fate differs slightly but significantly from
the idea of destiny. Author Leonard Doob explains in his book, Inevitability, the
difference between the concepts: fate is associated with doom, which usually has the same
negative connotation...there can be no hesitation that the principal with a 'fatal'
disease will gave a negative experience...Destiny, on the other hand, frequently--again
by no means always--suggests good fortune and is herewith assigned an association with
positive effect (7). I think we can all agree that Tess suffers from a deficiency of good
fortune so it must be Fate, not destiny, that continues to deal her a losing hand. 
There will most likely never be agreement on Tess's and Hardy's ability to change the
outcome of the novel. Not ever really burying his flaws very deeply, Hardy seems to
challenge the notion that the flaws were necessary and lend themselves to the books
readability. Critic Dorothy Van Ghent supports this idea writing that Hardy has, with
great cunning, reinforced the necessity of ...the folk fatalism, and folk magic...Their
philosophy and their skills in living...are indestructible, their attitudes toward events
authoritatively urge a similar fatalism upon the reader, impelling him to an imaginative
acceptance of the doomrwrought series of accidents in the foreground of action (57). 
It appears that Hardy intentionally left doubt as to Tess's playing into Fate or if she
is playing against it. But that is why the novel still grabs the reader like a good soap
opera. Hardy, through his Fatalistic approach, invokes sympathy and concern for poor Tess
that keeps the reader turning each page in breathless anticipation for what's next.
Debate as we will, it can not be denied that Hardy wrote a truly gripping novel. 
Bibliography
Doob, Leonard. Inevitability: Determinism, Fatalism, and Destiny. New York: Greenwood
Press, 1988. 
Hardy, Thomas. Tess of the d'Urbervilles. New York: MacMillan, 1991. 
Kettle, Arnold. Introduction to Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Twentieth Century
Interpretations of Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Ed. Albert LaValley, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. 14-29. 
Van Ghent, Dorothy. On Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Twentieth Century Interpretations of
Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Ed. Albert LaValley, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1969. 48-61. 
Waldoff, Leon. Psychological Determinism in Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Critical
Approaches to the Fiction of Thomas Hardy. Ed. Dale Kramer, London: MacMillan Press,
1979. 135-154.