Parts III and IV provided me with one conclusion: Women are NUTS! Being one myself, I can get away with such a bold and controversial declaration. Really though, in the world of Hardy's novel women are portrayed in a rather unfavorable light ... however truthful it may be. I need not reference Arabella's behavior thus far, as I'm sure we all agree she is absolutely disdainful. And although some of the class may think of Jude as somewhat dubious, sentimental, or even feeble, he nonetheless earns my sympathy as the only character in the novel to whom I can relate. Sue however, is an enigma (to put it mildly) as noted several times by Jude and by Phillotson. She is, simply, a walking contradiction. Despite her efforts to declare her liberal unconventionality, Sue's actions belie her assertions. Jude even recognizes this. As a "product of civilization," Jude claims that there is "nothing unconventional at all about" her (139). She has, after all, become engaged to one who seems the epitome of conventional, and plans on playing the part of wife and assisting him with the school. However she soon chooses another finds herself questioning the decision after she has done the deed. She acts on a whim so satisfy her needs at the present, without considering the consequences. Hmm ... this does seem like conventional female behavior ... In terms of emotions, Sue is all over the map. With Jude, she runs hot and cold. With Phillotson, she enters into a passionless marriage. I think Phillotson says it best when he states: "He exact feeling for him is a riddle to me -- and to him too, I think -- possibly to herself. She is one of the oddest creatures I ever met" (229). She seems to use both men, not only for her own purposes, but for mere entertainment value in watching them vie for her affections. However, since we do not receive an account of her life with Phillotson before their separation, this is simply conjecture based on her behavior toward Jude. In Jude's company, she speaks freely and naturally, but always ends on an invective note. He finally confronts her when he exclaims "you are never so nice in your real presence as you are in your letters!" Perhaps she is unable partake in an actual loving relationship with a cognizant being. This seems consistent with her attempts to strain herself from Jude. But once she finally does face reality and is truthful with both Jude and Phillotson, she still plays the game, relying on "a woman's natural timidity when the crisis comes" (239) to rescue her, once again from reality. Free from Phillotson to love Jude, she begins talk of returning to her husband! She even uses Jude's marriage as ammunition against Jude. Poor Jude, I feel his pain.

As I began reading this novel so many things seemed familiar to me: the characters, situations, plot points, etc. And then I realized that I had seen the film based on the book, but it is simply titled Jude. As I read further, I continually encountered the word "obscure." So, like Kelly, I looked up the word in the OED. I already knew the common definition, but I discovered others that seemed more appropriate in explaining Jude as "obscure." One that seems befitting is "of a person: ... not illustrious or famous; humble." I think this definition aptly describes Jude. What is ironic is that he strives to be illustrious and famous rather than a humble stonecutter. However, other definitions seem as, if not more, accurate in relation to Jude: 1. "Dark, dim, gloomy, dismal." Knowing what I know (and I'm not going to give anything away) this definition is quite revealing of the character and the story itself. If one considers other works by Hardy or knows his outlook on life, this definition seems very relatively typical. Although we haven't read but one third of the book, many points already allude to the character and the story as "dark, dim, gloomy, dismal": Jude's corrupt marriage to Arabella, his struggle over his feelings for Sue, his anger at the Christminster masters, his disappointment with Mr. Phillotson,the dissension among his family. Even small moments possess and air of melancholy and despondency, such as the slaying of the pig (which also seemed rather eerie to me). Jude, as he "serpentined among the shadows" (79) of the college at night as a bell tolled 101 times gave me the heebie-jeebies. 2. "Unenlightened, benighted" and "Of, relating to, or frequenting the darkness." Ok, so I looked up "unenlightened" and "benighted." The darkness referred to in the pursuant definition could be one of intellectual or moral darkness or it could refer to Jude as "not mentally illuminated." In either case, an argument can be made for both interpretations. Mentally and morally, Jude is in the dark. Mentally, he lacks an understanding of the world in which he lives and the consequences of his actions. Therefore, he constantly languishes under the pressures of his own circumstances. However learned and well-read he may be, his mental capacity does not allow him to survive in a societal setting. Morally, Jude is "frequents the darkness." While he thinks he is acting honorably, he nonetheless behaves somewhat unethically. He pursues Arabella, for whom he does not hold great affection. Eventually marrying her because he believes it to be righteous, he does not view her as "worth a great deal as a specimen of womankind" (57). The marriage is a result of a "transitory instinct" and "weakness" (62). Later, after falling in love with his own cousin, he finds himself despairing over the idea of her and the schoolmaster. Regardless of his efforts and struggles toward an honorable life, I think we'll soon recognize that Jude lives in "moral darkness."

I must begin by stating that I found W.E. Forester's argument to be compelling, passionate, organized, thorough, and well-supported. That said, I was able to focus more on the topic of the debate than merely the style in which he delivered it, which I soon appreciated once I began to read Montague's contention. Forester appeals to his audience from the outset with an apology. He is courteous, humble, and persuasive. He maintains this strategy throughout the argument, often claiming that he does not wish to dwell upon certain aspects of his argument or to waste anyone's time. Also, he continually repeats the word "we" in order to identify himself with members of the House, as well as the people, and represents himself as just one among many working for the good of a whole. With each new point, Forester introduces the problem, provides factual information, answers how the problem may be amended and the steps to be taken, and then sums up by reiterating what he has just proposed. All the while, he speaks not just to their minds, but to their hearts. He wishes everyone to benefit from the new bill, not just the government or the taxpayers, but especially the children, and eventually society as a whole. He is indeed brave in what he proposes, but he addresses any questions or disputes that may arise. He often anticipates an objection to his proposal, states the perceived question and sufficiently answers. He seems to have found a way to please everyone, excepting Lord Montague. Had I been a member of the House those many years ago, Montague would not have received my acceptance. I found his counter-argument to be combative (as opposed to Forester's civility), heedless (he posed too many questions that had been answered), and full of holes (again, his questions were followed by two many "ifs" and not enough answers). Also, I found his incessant use of numbers and statistics to be wearying. His detached attitude toward the subject did not win my sympathy, but rather my apathy. As to the content, I believe it may be properly summed up in the words of W.E. Forester: I am not a fanatic in this matter of education, I know well that knowledge is not a virtue -- that no education, much less elementary education, gives power to resist temptation -- is a safeguard against calamity; but we all know that want of education -- that ignorance is weakness, and that weakness in this hard struggling world generally brings misfortune -- often leads to vice. (466) For the most part, I agree with this statement. However, I do believe education is a virtue. I particularly support the idea that ignorance leads to vice, especially in today's society. However, ignorance is not always the result of a lack of education. But this statement was not made today, It was made more than a century ago and might have been more accurate then. However, if we relate this statement to Dickens's novel, we'll find a great disparity. After all, Bradley Headstone was very well educated, a schoolmaster even, who turned out to be the most vile character. Wegg was educated, as was Charlie, and neither of them were very attractive characters. As we've asked before ... what might Dickens have been saying? I wonder if he would have supported such a bill?