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.