 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010tess
To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result seemed to justify, and at best could only palliate. --from Tess of D'urbervilles Can the'birth' in the citation mean 'life'? How do you think Thomas Hardy could belittle life of one regardless of one's status? TIA CK > To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal compulsion, > whose gratuitousness nothing in the result seemed to justify, and at best could only palliate. > > --from Tess of D'urbervilles > > Can the'birth' in the citation mean 'life'? I don't think so. It looks to me like literal birth, being born. The "result" is life. > How do you think Thomas Hardy could belittle life of one regardless of one's status? He didn't. The character did. If status is relevant here, then maybe "her like" have the same status as her. -- Jerry Friedman >> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't think so. It looks to me like literal birth, being born. > The "result" is life. I haven't read the book, but I'd say it's more likely "giving birth" than "being born". >> How do you think Thomas Hardy could belittle life of one regardless >> of one's status? > > He didn't. The character did. If status is relevant here, then maybe > "her like" have the same status as her.  SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth. |Enormous effort and elaborate kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this (650)857-7572 |much money | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I haven't read the book, but I'd say it's more likely "giving birth" > than "being born". In the context of the novel it's clear that it means "being born". The children are singing: "Here we suffer grief and pain, Here we meet to part again; In Heaven we part no more." Tess finds it hard to believe in the words of the hymn they are singing. She doubts that Providence will be enough to help them through life, and she wonders if Wordsworth wasn't being sarcastic when he wrote the lines: "Not in utter nakedness But trailing clouds of glory do we come." Then comes the quoted sentence: "To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result seemed to justify and at best could only palliate." So, Wordsworth is saying "We're not really born naked" and Hardy is saying that being born is an inglorious ordeal for Tess and her like. SignatureJames >>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > So, Wordsworth is saying "We're not really born naked" and Hardy is > saying that being born is an inglorious ordeal for Tess and her like. It is unfair for Hardy to beliitle Tess for her low social status. The irony is Alec's pretended nobility is sham. Is it so that only artistocrats have the right to live while others are left to fend for themselves by whatever means? Thanks. Your comments are always sensible. >>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Is it so that only artistocrats have the right to live while others > are left to fend for themselves by whatever means? This is a picture of life in that era. Hardy doesn't belittle Tess. Her world puts little value on her life. Even the concept of virtue is distorted by one's class and wealth. >>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Thanks. Your comments are always sensible. > Please re-read James Hogg's post. Tess considers that one is forced into the world pointlessly. Hardy doesn't. TESS does. Class is indeed at the heart of his novels, but Hardy wouldn't belittle anyone for their low social status. Peter > >>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading > >>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Tess considers that one is forced into the world pointlessly. Hardy > doesn't. TESS does. ... Specifically, I think "To her" means "In her opinion" or "She believed", not something like "In regard to her". -- Jerry Friedman >>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Is it so that only artistocrats have the right to live >while others are left to fend for themselves by whatever means? If you think Hardy belittles Tess, then I suggest you go and read the book carefully. Katy >>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you think Hardy belittles Tess, then I suggest you go and read the book > carefully. Throughout the book, Hardy was sympathetic to Tess, of course. But I was shocked by his remark as cited for his negation of the life of Tess because of her low social status. > Katy >>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of >>>>>>> degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > was shocked by his remark as cited for his negation of the life of > Tess because of her low social status. Once again, it's not Hardy's negation of Tess's life. When he writes "To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal compulsion" he is lamenting the sad fact that people in Tess's position have little personal choice or opportunity. SignatureJames >>>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of >>>>>>>> degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > compulsion" he is lamenting the sad fact that people in Tess's position > have little personal choice or opportunity. I am tempted to go with the flow. I don't know why it is so that Hardy's remark in question more looks like a subjective one than an objective one at least to me, however. Thanks anyway. >>>>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>>>>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > in question more looks like a subjective one than an objective one > at least to me, however. Thanks anyway. The key phrase is "to her and her like". He is viewing things from her position. SignatureJames >>>>>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>>>>>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > The key phrase is "to her and her like". He is viewing things from her > position. Suppose Hardy was a reporter and described the cicumstances in which Tess and her like had been placed, the question whether he was viewing things from their positions or from his position would not make much sense, because the end result of the report would be how Hardy viewed the things. I quote your saying earlier: Hardy is *saying* that being born is an inglorious ordeal for Tess and her like. >>>>>>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>>>>>>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > position would not make much sense, because the end result of the > report would be how Hardy viewed the things. No. Suppose I'm a reporter and I write this: 'The four members of the family were sharing a potato for their dinner. To them it was a big feast'. Is that how I, the reporter, view things? Do I think it's a big feast? Am I belittling them? Now suppose Hardy went and asked Tess how SHE felt about life and Tess replied 'Being born (and for that matter, giving birth) is an ordeal: it's unasked-for (which is degrading) and it's pointless and what follows hardly makes it any more worthwhile'. And suppose he writes that down: "To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result seemed to justify and at best could only palliate." Is that how HE views things? Peter >>>>>>>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>>>>>>>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Is that how I, the reporter, view things? Do I think it's a big feast? Am > I belittling them? Yes, in a sense. What do you think 'view' means? A dictionary says: 'deem to be'. Didn't you, the reporter, deemed it to be a big feast for the four members of the family share a potato for their dinner, in consideration of what the family said to you and of what you personally observed, with the result that you reported as cited? It is pointless to argue whether the reporter views from personal viewpoints or from objects' viewpoints things he reports. What seems to matter is whether the reporter reports things sympathetically or antagonistically. > Now suppose Hardy went and asked Tess how SHE felt about life and Tess > replied 'Being born (and for that matter, giving birth) is an ordeal: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is that how HE views things? Yes. He agreed with what Tess said, in this instance, about herself and wrote it so. > Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of >>>>>>>>>>>>> degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the result seemed to justify, and at best could >>>>>>>>>>>>> only palliate. >>>>>>>>> It is unfair for Hardy to beliitle Tess for her low social >>>>>>>>> status. The irony is Alec's pretended nobility is sham. Is it [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Yes, in a sense. > What do you think 'view' means? A dictionary says: 'deem to be'. > Didn't you, the reporter, deemed it to be a big feast for the four > members of the family share a potato for their dinner, in > consideration of what the family said to you and of what you > personally observed, with the result that you reported as cited? The important word is FOR. For the members of the family it was a big meal. I saw a small meal. > It is pointless to argue whether the reporter views from personal > viewpoints or from objects' viewpoints things he reports. What seems > to matter is whether the reporter reports things sympathetically or > antagonistically. It's sympathetic. >> Now suppose Hardy went and asked Tess how SHE felt about life and >> Tess replied 'Being born (and for that matter, giving birth) is an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes. No. You simply don't understand it. > He agreed with what Tess said, in this instance, about herself and > wrote it so. He doesn't agree with her. He simply wrote down what she said. Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > It's sympathetic. You don't understand what I say. Let's leave it there. >>> Now suppose Hardy went and asked Tess how SHE felt about life and >>> Tess replied 'Being born (and for that matter, giving birth) is an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > He doesn't agree with her. He simply wrote down what she said. > Peter > You don't understand what I say. Let's leave it there. I don't think that Pete or anyone else has failed to understand what you've said. What irks you is that they just don't agree with you. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated a willful misunderstanding of what others have said . . . >> You don't understand what I say. Let's leave it there. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You, on the other hand, have demonstrated a willful misunderstanding of what > others have said . . . I have been saying what Hardy said was what Hardy said. I didn't misunderstand what anyone here said. I don't think there is any use of talking about the subject any more. Is there? > >> You don't understand what I say. Let's leave it there. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't think there is any use of talking about the subject > any more. Is there? Obviously not, because you are set in stubborn wrongheadedness. Why come here for advice when you refuse to accept what everyone has told you? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >> You don't understand what I say. Let's leave it there. >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > come here for advice when you refuse to accept what everyone has > told you? You say this because you are set in stubborn wrongheadedness? Why on earth have I to accept what everyone has told me? Should I get a permit from you to come and go? For heaven's sake, what do you think you are? > >> >> You don't understand what I say. Let's leave it there. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Should I get a permit from you to come and go? > For heaven's sake, what do you think you are? Okay. That does it. You came here purportedly seeking advice but you reject all advice and only want to argue and insult. You are just trolling. Plonk. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > Suppose Hardy was a reporter and described the cicumstances > in which Tess and her like had been placed, the question whether he was > viewing things from their positions or from his position would not make > much sense, because the end result of the report would be how Hardy > viewed the things. Ah, but suppose instead that Hardy was a novelist. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Suppose Hardy was a reporter and described the cicumstances in >> which Tess and her like had been placed, the question whether he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ah, but suppose instead that Hardy was a novelist. Your remark echoed in my mind last night as I lay in bed reading an article by an Estonian folklorist (as one does on a Thursday night). Ülo Valk cites Benedict Anderson, "who noted the parallel spread of newspapers and novels in many societies and the role that both play in constructing nations as imagined communities. While superficially different, both share a similar format, if not a similar train of thought." He then quotes Anderson: "Reading a newspaper is like reading a novel whose author has abandoned any thought of a coherent plot". SignatureJames [snip] > >>> <cinci_kr@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: > >>>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of > >>>>>>>> degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness > >>>>>>>> nothing in the result seemed to justify, and at best > >>>>>>>> could only palliate. [Snip interpretations that birth means life.] > I am tempted to go with the flow. I don't know why it is so that Hardy's > remark in question more looks like a subjective one than an objective one > at least to me, however. Thanks anyway. I have to disagree with most of the others, and agree with one person who said the remark is probably about *giving birth*. Babies are born in circumstances of pain and blood, not 'trailing clouds of glory." I'm not 100% certain what the bit about gratuitousness and palliation is trying to say, but it's something about whether the ordeal outweighs the benefits. The quote says "birth itself." As the oldest daughter, Tess would have had some familiarity with how babies are born (although not, as I recall, enough about how babies are *made*). It's ages since I read the book; does this line occur before she gets pregnant herself? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > [snip] >>>>> <cinci_kr@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I recall, enough about how babies are *made*). It's ages since I read > the book; does this line occur before she gets pregnant herself? No. I repeat my earlier post: In the context of the novel it's clear that it means "being born". The children are singing: "Here we suffer grief and pain, Here we meet to part again; In Heaven we part no more." Tess finds it hard to believe in the words of the hymn they are singing. She doubts that Providence will be enough to help them through life, and she wonders if Wordsworth wasn't being sarcastic when he wrote the lines: "Not in utter nakedness But trailing clouds of glory do we come." Then comes the quoted sentence: "To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result seemed to justify and at best could only palliate." End quote Wordsworth's words about not coming naked into this world are thus echoed by Hardy's reference to "birth", thus being born, not giving birth. SignatureJames [about the original quote] >>>>>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of >>>>>>>>>> degrading personal compulsion, whose >>>>>>>>>> gratuitousness nothing in the result seemed to >>>>>>>>>> justify, and at best could only palliate. > Wordsworth's words about not coming naked into this world are thus > echoed by Hardy's reference to "birth", thus being born, not giving birth. That is not the distinction I mean. To me, "being born" and "giving birth" are just two sides of the same coin; the distinction is whether you emphasize the baby's role or the mother's. Either will do. My point is that the "birth" in the Tess quote appears to be a statement about actual babies being born (the joint effort between the persons involved), *not* a person's entire life and/or social class, which the original poster and others seemed stuck on. It's something more like, life begins in misery and doesn't get much better. Or life begins with pain and nothing ever justifies that much suffering. I can't figure it out. I looked up gratuitous(ness) and palliate, just in case there was some obscure meaning I missed. "Gratuitous" could be any of these: 1 a : given unearned or without recompense b : not involving a return benefit, compensation, or consideration c : costing nothing : free 2 : not called for by the circumstances : unwarranted <gratuitous insolence> <a gratuitous assumption> The most likely meaning of "palliate" in MW11 is: 1 : to reduce the violence of (a disease); also : to ease (symptoms) without curing the underlying disease SignatureBest -- Donna > It's something more like, life begins in misery and doesn't get much > better. Or life begins with pain and nothing ever justifies that much > suffering. I can't figure it out. I agree with you. I think she's saying something along the lines of "I didn't ask to be born, yet I was forced into this hard life." SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > > [snip] > >>>>> <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Wordsworth's words about not coming naked into this world are thus > echoed by Hardy's reference to "birth", thus being born, not giving birth. The plain meaning of the words is that to the adult Tess, and to other adults like her, birth itself, and that's a short period of a few hours, is an ordeal of personal compulsion. It's not saying birth is an ordeal to the infant. It's an ordeal to the mother, who understands (more or less) what is happening. The word ordeal isn't really accurately applied to the baby's experience, anyway. I wouldn't like to describe an experience as an ordeal, if it applied to a creature that didn't have any idea what was going on, little idea about the past, and no idea about the future. The fact is, we don't know much, and Hardy knew even less, about what it feels like to be born. It's absurd to say an adult would look back on it as an ordeal. As for clouds of glory, Tess simply doesn't see any glorious child making up for the mother's ordeal. Nothing in the result, the child, trails clouds of glory. Though the child is compelled to be born, the mother too can't hold back from giving birth. At least, none that I've seen in the grip of those contractions. Compelling they are. -- franzi > [snip] >> >>> <cinci_kr@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > recall, enough about how babies are *made*). It's ages since I read the > book; does this line occur before she gets pregnant herself? No. Far after she gets pregnant. > "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > No. Far after she gets pregnant. If she already gave birth herself -- secretly and alone? -- all the more reason for her to know that there were few clouds of glory involved. In a very happy, secure, well-tended environment, yes. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > I am tempted to go with the flow. I don't know why it is so that > > Hardy's remark in question more looks like a subjective one than an > > objective one at least to me, however. Thanks anyway. > > I have to disagree with most of the others, and agree with one person > who said the remark is probably about *giving birth*. Yes! -- >>> I am tempted to go with the flow. I don't know why it is so that >>> Hardy's remark in question more looks like a subjective one than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes! Having read the arguments for that case, I now think that it's equally possible. Birth here could mean either being born or giving birth, or it could mean both. Hardy may have chosen this formulation for its ambiguity. SignatureJames >>>> I am tempted to go with the flow. I don't know why it is so that >>>> Hardy's remark in question more looks like a subjective one than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > possible. Birth here could mean either being born or giving birth, or it > could mean both. Hardy may have chosen this formulation for its ambiguity. Whoa! Where are you, who said: In the context of the novel it's clear that it means "being born"? Anyone care to interpret the citation in question into plain English? >>>>> I am tempted to go with the flow. I don't know why it is so >>>>> that Hardy's remark in question more looks like a subjective [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Whoa! Where are you, who said: In the context of the novel it's clear > that it means "being born"? I'm quite capable of revising my opinions when rational argument persuades me that there are other possible interpretations. > Anyone care to interpret the citation in question into plain > English? Try rereading my words above: "_Having read the arguments for that case_, I now think that it's equally possible [my italics]" I think the citation is quite comprehensible without further interpretation. SignatureJames >>>>>> I am tempted to go with the flow. I don't know why it is so >>>>>> that Hardy's remark in question more looks like a subjective [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I now think that it's equally possible [my italics]" I think the > citation is quite comprehensible without further interpretation. I must have jumped the gun to say, 'Thanks. Your comments are always sensible.' I am retracting what I said, as cited above. >>>>>>> I am tempted to go with the flow. I don't know why it is >>>>>>> so that Hardy's remark in question more looks like a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I must have jumped the gun to say, 'Thanks. Your comments are always > sensible.' I am retracting what I said, as cited above. I'm glad that you have shown, for the first time, that you too are capable of revising your opinions. I must confess that it was quite disconcerting for me to learn that you found my comments sensible. SignatureJames James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote in news:hjbt8q$l51$1 @news.eternal-september.org: >>>>>>>> I am tempted to go with the flow. I don't know why it is >>>>>>>> so that Hardy's remark in question more looks like a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > capable of revising your opinions. I must confess that it was quite > disconcerting for me to learn that you found my comments sensible. <BG> James, You have the forbearance of a saint! Peter > James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote in news:hjbt8q$l51$1 > @news.eternal-september.org: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > <BG> James, You have the forbearance of a saint! BG, Pete, are you instigating James to do what? > Peter >> James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote in news:hjbt8q$l51$1 >> @news.eternal-september.org: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > BG, Pete, are you instigating James to do what? Besides, Pete, are we here to hurt each other? We are here to help each other to solve questions they have and discuss for the how-to thereto, Aren't we? >> Peter >>> James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote in news:hjbt8q$l51$1 >>> @news.eternal-september.org: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > they have and discuss for the how-to thereto, > Aren't we? Besides, I am learning as I go about English. Take into account that fact when you are so eager to attack me, however high you are putatively placed English-wise. And nobody is so knowledgeable that he or she can monopolize all the knowledge, in this instance, about English, I believe. Look, how diverse interpretations there were even about one piece of citation in question! >>> Peter >>>> James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote in news:hjbt8q$l51$1 >>>> @news.eternal-september.org: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > English, I believe. Look, how diverse interpretations there were even > about one piece of citation in question! Yes, the interpretations were diverse. At first I thought my interpretation was the only obvious one. Then other people showed me that another interpretation was equally possible and I admitted that they could be right. Your reaction to my admission was not encouraging: "Whoa!" Why were you so eager to attack me? SignatureJames >>>>> James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote in news:hjbt8q$l51$1 >>>>> @news.eternal-september.org: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > Your reaction to my admission was not encouraging: "Whoa!" > Why were you so eager to attack me? As I have been saying, I am a learner. I tried the word. Are you so sensitive for your importance that you regarded the word to be attacking your so high a being? No, I am not so eager to attack you. If anything, I highly regard your being so knowledgable in English. I am paying attention to what you are saying. >> Your reaction to my admission was not encouraging: "Whoa!" >> Why were you so eager to attack me? > > As I have been saying, I am a learner. I tried the word. > Are you so sensitive for your importance that you regarded > the word to be attacking your so high a being? I've seen this sort of accusation from esl learners, possibly from the Far East, before. It's my view that the concept you are referring to doesn't feature in the British consciousness. None of us would think of reacting like that. SignatureDavid "James Hogg" <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Anyone care to interpret the citation in question into >>>>>>>>> plain English? > Yes, the interpretations were diverse. At first I thought my > interpretation was the only obvious one. Then other people showed me > that another interpretation was equally possible and I admitted that > they could be right. Let me take a shot at an interpretation of the citation in question: 'To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result seemed to justify, and at best could only palliate.' I can't agree with the proposition that the citation has anything to do with the 'labor'. The context doesn't support the idea. I've read through the book. To her, life was a degrading process of ever looking for food to survive, and her life regarded as nothing necessary has no way to justify itself, except for a possibility of its being regarded such being only attenuated. >>>>>>>>>> Anyone care to interpret the citation in question >>>>>>>>>> into plain English? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > justify itself, except for a possibility of its being regarded such > being only attenuated. I'm with the 'birth' means 'birth' group. Giving birth was (and sometimes still is) an ordeal, and one that's undergone by the mother under compulsion. Once the birth is started, she can't change her mind. Not only the compulsion, but the sheer physicality and mess of the birth itself makes it 'degrading', especially at that time and place, when a lot of female sexuality and physicality was considered disgusting and degrading. The very idea of babies being born in trains of glory was an attempt in the culture to separate the new life idea from the rather gross aspects of how the new life arrives. The child, when born, is not, in Tess's view, enough to justify the mess and suffering of childbirth, perhaps and unwelcome one, although it might ease the memory (presumably as she comes to love the child or find him useful). It's not that unusual an attitude for someone in a period in which one section of society was busy getting all sentimental about women and childbirth, and a much larger section found the whole business distasteful, painful, dangerous to the mother's life - and the care of a newborn infant might be more a burden than an blessing. SignatureCheryl >>>>>>>>>>> Anyone care to interpret the citation in question >>>>>>>>>>> into plain English? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > distasteful, painful, dangerous to the mother's life - and the care of a > newborn infant might be more a burden than an blessing. The problem with your group is that when the citation in question is mentioned, it was no time to reminisce about such a thing as the labor in the midst of Tess's being desperate over the dire plight of her existence. It's the matter of immediacy, not idly recalling the past incident of the birth of a child who lived only one week. The idea of the labor is impossible in the whole context. >> I'm with the 'birth' means 'birth' group. Giving birth was (and >> sometimes still is) an ordeal, and one that's undergone by the mother [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > only one week. > The idea of the labor is impossible in the whole context. I think you're mis-interpreting it. I don't see how 'birth' can mean 'life' in this context. SignatureCheryl >>> I'm with the 'birth' means 'birth' group. Giving birth was (and >>> sometimes still is) an ordeal, and one that's undergone by the mother [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I think you're mis-interpreting it. I don't see how 'birth' can mean > 'life' in this context. Can't you take 'birth' as to mean 'being born into this world, that is, a life? Above all, the 'birth' idea doesn't fit into the whole, just an 'incongruous and out of the blue' part in the context. >>>> I'm with the 'birth' means 'birth' group. Giving birth was (and >>>> sometimes still is) an ordeal, and one that's undergone by the mother [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Above all, the 'birth' idea doesn't fit into the whole, > just an 'incongruous and out of the blue' part in the context. "Being born into this world" isn't the same thing as "a life". "A Life" is what you (or Tess, or the baby) have before, during and after being born into this world. And if I wanted to get even more literal, you can be born into this world without life. It happens, even now, rarely, and it certainly happened in Tess's time that babies were born dead. I have a vague memory that even in the 20th century, if the baby died near the end of the pregnancy, and the doctors knew the baby was dead, the 'being born' was allowed to take place anyway, as it was the least physically damaging way to get the dead baby out of the mother. Births can be unexpected, too. It's been quite a while since I read 'Tess' - I never liked Hardy - and I don't remember the details of the plot, but births that are a surprise, out of the blue, even to the mother still happen. The exact timing of a birth is often a surprise. And if a woman doesn't know much about the process in advance, I'm told it comes as quite a shock. SignatureCheryl >>>>> I'm with the 'birth' means 'birth' group. Giving birth was (and >>>>> sometimes still is) an ordeal, and one that's undergone by the mother [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > And if a woman doesn't know much about the process in advance, I'm told > it comes as quite a shock. Let me say what the issue is. The issue is the 'labor' vs 'plight'. Why don't we leave it there? > Let me say what the issue is. The issue is the 'labor' vs 'plight'. > Why don't we leave it there? But I don't think that's a very good summation. You said "labor" a few times but I don't think that was literally the question. It was more, did "birth" in this case mean the actual physical process that gives life to a new child (labor being one part of that), or did it mean social standing (a woman of high birth, etc.) I and others said it had more to do with the first than the second. This is a very complex passage, and I said at the beginning I didn't understand it. It does seem to relate everything -- the physical process of birth, the social circumstances (Wordsworth's poem implies happy jolly childhoods with a nurse, vs. Hardy's account of deprivation and travails of the poor), and yes, class ("for to Tess, as to not a few millions of others," and "To her and her like"). That's about as far as I've gotten: Hardy thought that Wordsworth's view was middle-class, and a "ghastly satire" for the poor. Childhood was not necessarily a blissful time that gives us a glimpse of a heaven that we will return to. He writes those as being Tess's thoughts. Then he puts this more abstract generalization with big words, and it might be his own opinion, not Tess's -- that's the sort of literature argument college students have to write about. See elsewhere for passage. SignatureDonna Richoux > >>> I'm with the 'birth' means 'birth' group. Giving birth was (and > >>> sometimes still is) an ordeal, and one that's undergone by the mother [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Above all, the 'birth' idea doesn't fit into the whole, > just an 'incongruous and out of the blue' part in the context. But it's not just 'birth', is it? The phrase that Hardy used was 'birth itself', which emphasizes, focuses on, that precise event. You can't expect, from that, that he meant the whole of life. He was careful to say that it was 'birth itself' that he was writing about. -- franzi <snip> > Above all, the 'birth' idea doesn't fit into the whole, > just an 'incongruous and out of the blue' part in the context. I don't have an opinion on how fitting or incongruous it may be, but it doesn't come "out of the blue" at all: the hymn fragment immediately preceding the passage in question alludes to birth quite clearly. SignatureOdysseus > The problem with your group is that when the citation in question is > mentioned, it was no time to reminisce about such a thing as the labor in > the midst of Tess's being desperate over the dire plight of her existence. > It's the matter of immediacy, not idly recalling the past incident of the > birth of a child who lived only one week. The idea of the labor is > impossible in the whole context. It doesn't have to take long to remind a woman of the pregnancy or birth of her own child, or painful events of the past. However, since you are the only one mentioning context, let me reprint it here so you can be reassured you are not the only person who knows what the context is. All these classics are easily found via the Online Books Page. This one is at: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/1/110/110.txt Tess was actually having a contemplative moment. [After various troubles, Tess is facing choices on how best to care for her mother and younger siblings. They are to be turned out of their house.] "This is the last night that we shall sleep here, dears, in the house where we were born," she said quickly. "We ought to think of it, oughtn't we?" They all became silent; with the impressibility of their age they were ready to burst into tears at the picture of finality she had conjured up, though all the day hitherto they had been rejoicing in the idea of a new place. Tess changed the subject. "Sing to me, dears," she said. There was a momentary pause; it was broken, first, in one little tentative note; then a second voice strengthened it, and a third and a fourth chimed in unison, with words they had learnt at the Sunday-school-- Here we suffer grief and pain, Here we meet to part again; In Heaven we part no more. ... she put her face to the pane as though to peer into the gloom. It was really to hide her tears. If she could only believe what the children were singing; if she were only sure, how different all would now be; how confidently she would leave them to Providence and their future kingdom! But, in default of that, it behoved her to do something; to be their Providence; for to Tess, as to not a few millions of others, there was ghastly satire in the poet's lines-- Not in utter nakedness But trailing clouds of glory do we come. To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result seemed to justify, and at best could only palliate. [Her mother arrives and story resumes.] ===== I think she briefly considers letting the young children die -- or at least leave them on their own? -- because they would go to heaven and meet up there! But, because she has no faith that will happen, she has to take steps to provide for them now, to keep them alive and cared for. Then we go on the puzzling lines in question. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> The problem with your group is that when the citation in question is >> mentioned, it was no time to reminisce about such a thing as the labor in [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > ... she put her face to the pane At that moment, which line of thought is more congruous to the plot, the one in which Tess reminisces about the labor and the other in which Tess is despondent over her plight? The moment is in chapter 51 out of the whole 59, nearing the end of the story, while the subject of the labor, if any, is in Chapter 14, almost at the beginning. I believe the labor just doesn't have its place there under the circumstances in which Tess is being faced with the dire plight in her life, she being in need of securing security for herself, immediately at that. as though to > peer into the gloom. It was really to hide her tears. If she could > only believe what the children were singing; if she were only sure, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > to take steps to provide for them now, to keep them alive and cared for. > Then we go on the puzzling lines in question. > Let me take a shot at an interpretation of the citation in question: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with the 'labor'. The context doesn't support the idea. I've read through > the book. 1) One thing you may have missed, I didn't notice it in your earlier post, is that the famous Wordsworth poem Tess studied and dismissed, with the line about "trailing clouds of glory do we come," was definitely about infancy and childhood. You can easily find the whole poem on line. The poet goes on at great length about the joys and happiness of childhood, and how the dim memories as a careworn adult of that golden time give him hope of an afterlife. Stanza 5 of "Ode, Intimations Of Immortality From Recollections Of Early Childhood": Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar: Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home: Heaven lies about us in our infancy! Shades of the prison-house begin to close Upon the growing Boy, But He beholds the light, and whence it flows, He sees it in his joy; The Youth, who daily farther from the east Must travel, still is Nature's Priest, And by the vision splendid Is on his way attended; At length the Man perceives it die away, And fade into the light of common day. 2) I have no idea why the others are trying to bully you. Perhaps you said something in another thread that still stings? A good apology works wonders. 3) I got confused when looking through the posts on this thread, because your newsreader apparently does not remove signatures automatically, or not all of them, and since other people's (quoted) names are at the end of your posts, it looks like they are speaking to you, instead of vice versa. So, please delete previous signatures. Thanks. SignatureBest wishes -- Donna Richoux > >>> James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote in news:hjbt8q$l51$1 > >>> @news.eternal-september.org: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Look, how diverse interpretations there were > even about one piece of citation in question! No one has attacked you. Quite the contrary. Until now. I am about to attack you. Your original questions in your first posting were: <quote> Can the'birth' in the citation mean 'life'? How do you think Thomas Hardy could belittle life of one regardless of one's status? </quote> Your respondents are unanimous regarding the second question: Hardy was not belittling anyone. Yet you must argue about it. As for the first question, your respondents are again unanimous that "birth" meant "birth", not "life". They did get into a discussion about whether "birth" meant "giving birth", "being born", or both. That's irrelevant to the question you asked. If you want to get help with English, you will find many here willing to help you. When everyone here gives you the same answer, accept it. If you are unwilling to accept the answer, then go away. You don't want help, you want to argue. Persist in that and you will find that no one will respond to your questions. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >>> James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote in news:hjbt8q$l51$1 >> >>> @news.eternal-september.org: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > No one has attacked you. Where were you? Quite the contrary. Until now. I am about > to attack you. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Your respondents are unanimous regarding the second question: Hardy > was not belittling anyone. Yet you must argue about it. You say no one can have a different opinion? > As for the first question, your respondents are again unanimous that > "birth" meant "birth", not "life". They did get into a discussion [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > willing to help you. When everyone here gives you the same answer, > accept it. If you are unwilling to accept the answer, then go away. You are dictating who can be here and who can't? You don't want help, you want to argue. Persist in that and you will > find that no one will respond to your questions. May only you not answer my question. "James Hogg" <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote > I'm glad that you have shown, for the first time, that you too are > capable of revising your opinions. I must confess that it was quite > disconcerting for me to learn that you found my comments sensible. Sorry for having made a remark so disconcerting to you, who are so highly placed. 'Sensible' will be reworded as to be 'informative'. >> I'm glad that you have shown, for the first time, that you too are >> capable of revising your opinions. I must confess that it was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sorry for having made a remark so disconcerting to you, who are so > highly placed. 'Sensible' will be reworded as to be 'informative'. Here it seems to be appropriate to repeat a recent comment by the Omrud: > I've seen this sort of accusation from esl learners, possibly from > the Far East, before. It's my view that the concept you are > referring to doesn't feature in the British consciousness. None of > us would think of reacting like that. I'm getting the strong impression here that there is a cultural gap that is getting in the way of communication. James has, over time, established a reputation for writing things that are worth reading. Nevertheless, we - the native English speakers in this group - do not think of him as being "highly placed". We agree with him when we think he's right, and disagree with him when we have a different opinion. And likewise for most of the other contributors to the newsgroup. The question of status simply doesn't arise. None of us, as far as I know, thinks in terms of how we rank relative to other group members. We are simply participants in a discussion. Now and then it becomes obvious that one particular contributor is especially well equipped to offer an expert opinion, so perhaps that opinion has greater weight, but that decision varies depending on the topic. On the other hand you, chance, have established a reputation for insulting the people who have helped you, and for continuing to argue after so many people have commented that it is obvious to everyone else that you are mistaken. Is this a personality clash, or is it because on both sides people are making assumptions that are normal in their own culture but seriously foreign in the other culture? I don't know; but it does seem that some care is needed to avoid misunderstandings. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> I'm glad that you have shown, for the first time, that you too are >>> capable of revising your opinions. I must confess that it was [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > are worth reading. Nevertheless, we - the native English speakers in > this group - do not think of him as being "highly placed". Which had not been used in a literal sense. We agree with > him when we think he's right, and disagree with him when we have a > different opinion. And likewise for most of the other contributors to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > after so many people have commented that it is obvious to everyone else > that you are mistaken. Which instance did you have in mind when you said this? I don't remember insulting people first from my part. If ever, it may have been in response in kind. I don't remember continuing argueing even when I thought I was wrong. It was very unfair for me to hear such as '...established a reputation for...mistaken....' > Is this a personality clash, or is it because on both sides people are > making assumptions that are normal in their own culture but seriously > foreign in the other culture? I don't know; but it does seem that some > care is needed to avoid misunderstandings. Agreed. > "James Hogg" <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > who are so highly placed. 'Sensible' will be reworded > as to be 'informative'. Your reaction to my admission was not encouraging: "Whoa!" 'Whoa!' should have been 'Just a moment.' > Having read the arguments for that case, I now think that it's equally > possible. Birth here could mean either being born or giving birth, or > it could mean both. Hardy may have chosen this formulation for its > ambiguity. Yes. I now think he meant both. Peter >Once again, it's not Hardy's negation of Tess's life. When he writes "To >her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal >compulsion" he is lamenting the sad fact that people in Tess's position >have little personal choice or opportunity. In other words, a social comment. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Throughout the book, Hardy was sympathetic to Tess, of course. > But I was shocked by his remark as cited for his negation of the life > of Tess because of her low social status. The reader's "shock" seems a misapprehension. Although Tess is the protagonist of this book, she is not a perfect or idealised character. Hardy ascribes to her values or specific ideas (about childbirth, about social class, about telling lies etc.) that anyone might deplore or condemn: but these were ideas really believed by real people in real places (country places being culturally different from London, Oxford, Birmingham, etc.) and Hardy as an author wanted (like Zola and other contemporaries) to describe ideas earlier authors tended to suppress or ignore. This is why he is classified as a Realist novelist. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But I was shocked by his remark as cited for his negation of the life > of Tess because of her low social status. It's not uncommon for people to think that other people's lives aren't worth living, because they are living in poverty or suffering in some other way. "Better off dead" is a common phrase used in such situations, although not, if the speaker is kind, to the target's. SignatureCheryl >>>>>>> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading >>>>>>> personal compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >But I was shocked by his remark as cited for his negation of the life >of Tess because of her low social status. But all he is saying is that that is how it seems *to Tess*. Hardy is not negating anything. Katy > To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal > compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result seemed to justify, > and at best could only palliate. > --from Tess of D'urbervilles > Can the'birth' in the citation mean 'life'? > How do you think Thomas Hardy could belittle life of one regardless of > one's status? I realize that some cultures value quantities of life over quality --- how else could we explain impoverished people producing so many children when they have not the means to improve the lives of the children? However, the values that produce such a sad situation are far from universal. Hardy is not belittling the lives of poor people --- circumstances have done that. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 48 1159.6 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II. Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change. >> To her and her like, birth itself was an ordeal of degrading personal >> compulsion, whose gratuitousness nothing in the result seemed to justify, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > values that produce such a sad situation are far from universal. Hardy is > not belittling the lives of poor people --- circumstances have done that. There are two good reasons for people in poor circumstances to have many children. First, children were more likely to die young. Second, they need(ed) someone to take care of them in their old age. The lack of birth control was/is another factor. --Jeff SignatureIs man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's? --Friedrich Nietzsche |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.