Talk:Far from the Madding Crowd

Warning, Plot Details Follow But....

"Non-tragic"?? I would hardly describe the book's end as a classic happy ending.

"Bathsheba smiled (for she never laughed readily now)"...........I don't see how poor old Bathsheba making do with old Gabriel after the lovers she cared for did each other over is really a happy end! "Making do" is very much the key phrase here; she doesn't fall in love with Gabriel at the end, she turns to him by default after the dire consequences.

Tragic after all?

-BG 12/10/05

Even if the ending is heartbreaking the story is not necessarily a tragedy. Generally, a story needs other charactersitics such as hamartia and anagnorisis to be a true tragedy. Erroneous01 17:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If Batsheva's repeated rejection and dismissal of Oak, including in favour of a chancer like Troy, is not hamartia, the word has no meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.230.229 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What?! Did you people read this novel? After a long friendship, the only real friendship Bathsheba has known, she finally realizes she has come to love Gabriel. And this is "tragic" and "heartbreaking"? Clarityfiend 06:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Although it is clear that Bathsheba never felt any passionate or romantic love for Gabriel, the succession of difficulties Bathsheba faces throughout the story mature her character. By the end of the book she has independently and intelligently come to the realisation that infactuation is a fanciful, fleeting type of "love" that fails to truly satisfy, and that Gabriel's remarkable integrity and enduring love for her are far more valuable and sustainable qualities than more obvious human characteristics (such as physical appearance, means or perceived cache). To that extent, Bathsheba does indeed admire Gabriel with a not inconsiderable degree of love. Thus, as much as the story is about different manifestations of love, it also demonstrates how variously grief - love's counterpoint - can impact human judgment: Whereas Bathsheba's judgment matured, and Boldwood's judgment was shattered, for the other main characters there was little impact at all [Troy's judgment never improves; and Gabriel's rarely falters, come-what-may]. Bearing in mind that the book was written by a male, middle-class English author during the Victorian era, the ending suggests something of an intended success for Bathsheba insofar as we see her character transformed from a vain and impetuous young lady to a more grounded, self-aware and considerate woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarusburns (talk • contribs) 09:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

IS IT A TRAGEDY OR A HAPPY ENDING?? : In repsonse to the above comment - "Generally, a story needs other charactersitics such as hamartia and anagnorisis to be a true tragedy." In a way, there is both in this story. The hamartia or "fatal flaw" of Bathsheba is in her wilfullness. This is also in a way her main strength throughout the novel, but when mixed with her youthful passion (remember that Bathsheba is only in her very early twenties in the book), this becomes a fatal flaw which leads her to fall in love with Troy despite her better judgement, and to 'lead on' Boldwood with the Valentine out of sheer pride (because her beauty/presence was not admired by him at the very beginning). The anagorisis in this story is at the second-last chapter when Bathsheba realises that what she has been looking for all along is right in front of her - that is, Gabriel and his love and enduring friendship. She realises that she cannot live without his support, and that it was his qualities that got her through the worse times. She then realises she loves him (she is certainly not 'making do', as someone mentioned above, because she is in a position where she does not need to marry, but chooses to). However, despite these two things, the novel is not really a tragedy because the ending is generally a positive "all's well that ends well" affair. But there are hints at it not being the 'perfect' ending. Firstly, Bathsheba not being to "laugh readily" anymore, suggesting that the emotional strain of the last few years has taken her permanently away from the state of youthful innocence and into a state of reconciled maturity; and also, the last words in the book are from Joseph Poorgrass, where he says (ad he has said many times in the book) - "why, it might have been worse, and I give my thanks accordingly." This suggests that the ending is not one of complete happiness and satisfaction, but rather that it 'could have been worse', and they should be thankful that things turned out well (at least for the two main protagonists). - BY simba456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.120.133 (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I once saw a plot summary for "Bambi" which read: Baby deer grows up. This one could read: Bathsheba grows up. (only joking, however with a serious intent i.e. agreement with the thrust of the above comments). Tony 1212 (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Boldwood and Bathsheba

The relationship between Boldwood and Bathsheba, while grotesque, is not quite the stalker-and-victim situation described here. Moreover, Bathsheba does gives Boldwood some encouragement beyond the flirtatious valentine. See the second half of chapter 23; Bathsheba, guilt-stricken over the passion she so carelessly roused, and yet perversely flattered by the worship of a man previously deemed an emotional fortress, gives Boldwood permission to continue to hope:

"I have every reason to hope that at the end of the five or six weeks, between this time and harvest, that you say you are going to be away from home, I shall be able to promise to be your wife," she said firmly. "But remember this distinctly, I don't promise yet."

"It is enough; I don't ask more. I can wait on those dear words. And now, Miss Everdene, good-night!"

"Good-night," she said graciously--almost tenderly; and Boldwood withdrew with a serene smile.

Bathsheba knew more of him now; he had entirely bared his heart before her, even until he had almost worn in her eyes the sorry look of a grand bird without the feathers that make it grand. She had been awestruck at her pst temerity, and was struggling to make amends without thinking whether the sin quite deserved the penalty she was schooling herself to pay.

Bathsheba, it would seem, is steeling herself to atone for her guilt by marrying this stiff; and Boldwood, in the selfishness of his passion, is willing to take her on those terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilyaunfois (talk • contribs) 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Grotesque??! Good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.230.229 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yawn gives wrong impression of Bathsheba

But she does yawn! Ilyaunfois 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but without the rest of the conversation, it makes her look heartless. Clarityfiend 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fray Luis de Leon

About the name of the novel Far from de madding Crowd:

The title, which is taken from Thomas Gray's poem Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard (1751),

   Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife
   Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray;
   Along the cool sequester'd vale of life
   They kept the noiseless tenor of their way. 

I ever read that the name was taken from a poem from verses written by the Renaissance Spanish poet Fray Luís de León: "Que descansada vida la del que huye del mundanal ruido" ("What a peaceful life the one's who escapes away from the worldly noise"). Soembody kowns more about this?

Antonio Reynaldos

Calgary Corpus

Shouldn't there be some note somewhere in here that this book is used by Calgary Corpus as one of a set of files used to test the performance of data compression algorithms? Most data compression algorithms when reported on include an analysis of their performance on this list of files. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what this has to do with the price of tomatoes. Dwhjr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And it is deleted from the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I use it to line the bottom of my birdcage. Should that be mentioned too? -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Why have an 'analysis' section if you're not even going to mention the Bible story?

This book is clearly a play (a very loose play on it, but nonetheless a play of on it) on the Bible story of Bathsheba, David and Uriah. You've got the girl named Bathsheba, the "King" who wants her badly enough to kill her husband, the soldier husband who's so indifferent to his wife and to married life he'd rather stay abroad. Etc etc. Hardy subverts it in a fun way by having a righteous third party swoop in and get the girl, but it's clear what he's playing off of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research. Base it on citations and it can go in. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Need section on Reviews, on changes in later editions, and shorter plot summary

This article lacks a section on Reviews or Critical Reception. The lead paragraph says it was well received, but where is text in the article supporting that sentence? Plot summary is long. I changed title of last subsection, as it was commentary. If Hardy made changes twice over 20 years after the original publication, which version is in the summary? Is there a list of his changes anywhere? Those are ome suggestions to raise the quality of the article. I am not a Hardy fan, but I did read the novel years ago. I am not sure how the article is C Class without Reviews or Critical Response. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

First Wessex Novel?

According to Under the greenwood tree, that is the first Wessex novel. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Serious omission

How is it possible that the place name "Dorset" is mentioned nowhere in the text of the current version of this article? This situation should be corrected immediately. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

“References in popular culture” section is useless trivia

The section I’ve cited consists entirely of trivia. An ipc section is supposed to demonstrate the impact of the subject on pop culture, but instead every item is literally a reference and nothing more: a borrowing of the title, a paraphrasing of the title, a misuse of the title, a borrowing of individual words from the title and one case of borrowing the surname of one of the characters. Not one in any way demonstrates the impact of the novel on culture. 2603:9001:4500:1C09:833:CD8B:BF6F:8C8E (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)