Character is Fate - Choose three episodes from the novel and discuss whether this statement is true of Michael Henchard.

Authors Avatar

‘Character is Fate’

Choose three episodes from the novel and discuss whether this statement is true of Michael Henchard.

                

        In this essay I shall be considering and discussing whether Michael Henchard’s character can be described as fate. Michael Henchard’s character can be described as fate. The actions in which he takes throughout the novel are mostly unfortunate and could be argued as fate or just generally his misfortunate character. Fate can be defined as “the development of events outside a person’s control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power”(www.dictionary.com). The subtitle of the novel is “the life and death of a man of character” this subtitle sums up, extremely briefly Michael Henchard’s fate prone character and tells us that the novel is about his whole life, from his unknown origin to his lonely death. To understand the question and  how fate links in with Michael Henchard’s character, the definition of character is “the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual”(www.dictionary.com) this is important as there are many different contexts in which this word can be used. In my opinion in the novel of ‘The Mayor of Casterbridge’ Michael Henchard’s could have been described as fate. To expand on my theory I shall be looking at three particular episodes which strongly support my personal opinions. These episodes will be the key event from the story, when Michael Henchard sells his wife and child to a sailor, when there is a celebration in the town and both Henchard and Farfrae set up celebrations, and the final episode I shall be discussing is when there is a poor harvest to predict the.

        The first episode in which Michael Henchard’s character and actions are presented as an act of fate, is the first chapter of the novel, when Henchard and his wife, Susan, and baby daughter, Elizabeth-Jane are walking along a road to a large village called Weydon-Priors. This is when we first notice the “obscurity of the married couples stride“. “She seemed to have no idea of taking his arm, nor he of offering it;” this is on the second page and the reader already gets he feeling that the couple are not meant to be together as from what we see they both are not very fond of each other. Therefore it could be considered fate that later on in the chapter he sells his wife and refers to the fact that she is a burden and how he would be much better off without her pulling him down. But the only reason he tries to sell his wife is because as they walk further down the road towards Weydon-Priors, once they arrive  they enter a furmity tent which is a type of edible gruel with flour and raisins. It was fate that lead Henchard and his family to the furmity tent, there were lots of other tents but Henchard inevitably went into the furmity tent in which the woman spiked the bowls of furmity with rum. It was fate that made Susan lead Henchard to the furmity tent rather than another alcoholic tent. The question in which the reader is constantly thinking is why this tent, there were other tents but why the only tent in which the food was spiked. Therefore having entered this tent and spotted the bowls being spiked fate led Henchard to also do the same, which led to his drunken behaviour and eventually the sale of his wife and child. At the exact same time he hears horses being auctioned off, which show fate working against him as the exact same time he  is in a drunken mess fate tries to make Henchards well-being worse by making sure he heard the auction outside. The horses being auctioned of just outside the tent is fortunate but could also be argued as fate because the horses could have been auctioned elsewhere but they were distinctively auctioned where Henchard could hear. This chapter shows us that it is not Henchard’s character that is at fault here but it is fate, as at the beginning he refused to hold hands with his wife and tried to walk ahead of her so they would not be seen together, and now because of the fate being a part of Henchard’s character he doesn’t have to walk next to her or hold her hand or have her as a burden, he is now a “free man” and can attempt to become” worth a thousand pound”.

Join now!

        The sale of Michael Henchards wife would have been looked at differently in times like when the novel was set and in times today. In Hardy’s time this was not seen as that bad in doing, as men were seen inferior to woman and therefore owned their wives. Which made it difficult to argue against the sale of ones property. But in the 21st Century, this is seen completely differently. Firstly, the sale of any human being is illegal worldwide. It is seen as immoral and against peoples human rights. People would have much more objections and interference nowadays than in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay