Andrew Lang compared Mrs. Durbeyfield and Sir John Falstaff as being a common type of character in his response to Hardy's response in the one-volume edition's preface to his original review of Tess:
But where a novelist, or a poet, deals with a very unscientific character, like Mrs. Durbeyfield or Sir John Falstaff, then the use of psychological terminology seems to my sense out of place." (Lang)
It's very much like what Kelsey commented on before (Bill Bill Bill), but that Shakespeare is everywhere in both the texts and the reviews. Admittedly, Hardy did a lot of the connecting himself, with his Two Gents epigram and Lear preface defense, but the reviewers continually compare (and contrast) Tess to "the Lear or the Othello," or, as W.P. Trent does, draw hope for Hardy's future career by following a perceived parallel to "Shakspere." I'm remembering one reviewer calling Tess a "shakespearean" woman but I can't seem to find which one again at the moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment