[Hardy-l] The grotesque in Hardy

[Eric Christen]

Dear all,
    One of the difficulties is, how is the word 'grotesque' to be defined?
So much depends on the reader's subjective or automatic perception. Some
things - a character, a situation, the combination of elements in a setting,
a chain of events - may have appeared to be 'grotesque' to Hardy's
contemporaries, and yet they would be more 'acceptable' and 'in line with
common view of things' in 2008. I assume that Jacky's chapter will be
concerned with what was meant and understood to be 'grotesque' in Hardy's
time. If poor Sargent Troy's gargoyle was seen to be grotesque (and was it
really?) as well as dramatic, or tragic, or pathetic, nowadays few people
would say that some famous distorted African masks, or prehistoric figures,
are 'grotesque'? Surely not, at least not without qualifying the word
carefully. Apes at the time of Darwin were 'grotesque'. So-called primitive
art is not considered 'grotesque' nowadays - on the contrary. We think we
know what it says, and we take it as it is without labelling it 'grotesque',
in the same way as, for example, we take what Freudian and post-Freudian
psychology says about our deep inner self.
    This of course can lead to what the 'grotesque' in Hardy's fiction
covers and therefore uncovers: what a field of research and new discoveries!
    Congratulations to Jacky for tackling such a rich mine.
    Best,
    Eric Christen