But if you’re joining me in The Discourses I’ve started it.

A note to those of you still reading The Prince or wanting to read it, I will still cover it. Likely I’m going to make a video on one of the chapters this week, I believe chapter 15. And The Discourses expands the concepts introduced in The Prince, so much of what’s discussed from The Discourses will apply.

The Discourses is a sizable book. It will take some time to go through. Do not worry about reading speed or falling behind. Chew what bites you can, enjoy what bites you can, and any analysis, observations, understandings, struggles, or questions, feel free to mention in the chat or in the comments.

Also, last week’s livestream was stellar. You can watch th…

Read more

Livestream

This week, Friday, April 3rd, I’m going to do a Livestream right here on Substack.

If you can join me live, I would love to have you on. It looks like I can now host live via my desktop, I hope it’s a smooth experience. Come on, ask some questions, share some observations, or anything Machiavelli you got go right ahead.

If you can or cannot make it — questions or observations you’d like answered or addressed, go ahead and share those either by commenting here below or sharing it in the chat thread.

Schedule

Right now, I’m on Chapter 15. I’m changing my reading schedule a bit this week to get an hour on certain mornings. So I might make easy work of the rest of The Prince. If you’re planning to join me on the Discourses, let’s plan Monday, April 6th as the start. But I will still be…

Read more

Read more

With Machiavelli, it was the modern experience — he speaks of hs lunga esperienza delle cose moderne in his Dedicatory Letter to The Prince (written in 1513) — that found its own expression. In Machiavelli modernity found an interpretation of itself that determined the orientation of the European mind, and hence European political history, from that moment on.

Read more

As I said in the video, he and Pierre Manent arrive at the same conclusions, and often through the same pathways, despite Manent and Grafton holding different worldviews. To me, with vetted thinkers like this, that same conclusion offers weight to both, and means we should take what they say with gravity and it’s a worthwhile compass to help us grasp, understand, and enjoy The Prince.

Here are some passages I believe relevant to the introduction, and passages that will help us tackle this iconic work.

From: Natural Law and Human Rights: Toward a Recovery of Human Reason, Pierre Manent

These are curated from the introduction by Daniel J. Mahoney:

It wads the classics and the Christians who defended “reflective choice” and “free will,” the preconditions of all meaningful action. By contrast, Machiavelli, writing at the dawn of modernity, substituted a theoretical perspective on action that eclipsed the agent’s poin…

Read more

Some of you are joining me for The Prince, some for The Discourses and some for both. Again, no need to be reading along to engage in the topic of Machiavelli. This is open to all paying members. If you have questions, you can ask in the comments, you can ask in the dedicated chat thread, or you can ask on the livestream videos.

I’m starting The Prince today. As I discussed in the video I sent the other day, I will engage with the introduction, and will do a video on it. Those of you reading The Prince, please do offer your analysis and walkaway from the introduction. An introduction to a work like this sets a tone. Good introductions, and hopefully this one is good, give signposts, questions and ideas to look for, and some under…

Read more

The bookclub is about to begin.

For anyone new, my official bookclub is launching. The first topic: Machiavelli. It’s open to all paying members and it’s required to read either of the works.

This week I’m preparing.

I just went through Ritchie Robertson’s The Enlightenment. Robertson is an Enlightenment scholar, and while no specific chapter is devoted to Machiavelli, I looked through to see the Machiavelli influence on some Enlightenment thinkers, and found some good tidbits. Mainly, some good tidbits relating to Edward Gibbon and the Roman Empire. He also reminded me of the claim that The Prince was satire. A unique claim, nothing too much of a rabbit hole, but certainly a little bit of conspiracy tinged food for thought.

I also ordered Anti-Machiavel by King Frederick of Prussia. Frederick wrote why Machiavelli was wrong based on his experience. Which is interesting since Frederick, from the little I know of him, was what some consider a Machiavellian leader, since he was a Realpolitik player. Yet, as Pierre Manent shows, one can assert, whether it’s power or dominance or will, in a manner that is not Machiavellian, even if it’s an aggressive assertion. More food for thought.

This week I will likely also dig into the Manent books I ordered, not fully, but just to get some topics and mark some chapters of The Prince to take note of.

Start Date

Again, it’s not required to read to join in. You can ask questions, engage, and watch some of the videos.

But for those of you reading, let’s peg Monday, March 23rd as the start date.

No law says you must start on that day. You can begin sooner, you can begin after, you can begin well after if you’d like. But we’ll mark that day as the day to begin.

This week I plan to record a video on handling introductions and translator notes of a book of this sort through the new Substack Studio feature. Classic books, among others, almost always have an introduction written by either a scholar on the topic or a notable figure. Introductions matter. They can set the tone, provide clarity, give context, and guide or misguide. As to the latter, man is a political animal, and a person’s worldview does seep into works or lenses. Sometimes it’s not as explicit, and some authors and writers are great at leaving most of it out, but it will come out in some manner. That can set a tone so it’s important for our own critical thinking to provide context to the context being provided to you.

Plus, a big plus, modern publishing industries, especially a big player like Penguin, in my experience (being somewhat a Penguin Classics maximalist myself) attempt to hijack thinkers, authors, stories into the Left umbrella. And some of this hijackins is to the point of comedy, like Amartya Sen’s introduction to Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, where Sen makes a case that Smith was actually arguing for modern monetary theory and Socialism styled economic theory. That absurdity is so absurd it’s comedic.

Also another reason I do this, the best class I took in college was for history majors, and you had to have high grades to get in, I got in and am still proud as it was selective. Much of the class discussed the various styles of historical writing, how to theme a museum, how to present those plaques you see at a historical marker, and how to spot the worldviews or leanings and why it mattered. It didn’t make me a savant of knowing worldviews, but I recognized the importance to understand the lens of a writer or historian to get a handle on how they’re presenting it, whether it has an agenda, whether it’s counterfactual, so on and so forth. It was an invaluable class.

Enough rambling, I’ll save it for the video. And I’ll do a video on the introduction for The Prince once I get into it.

Again the edition I’m reading: The Prince ISBN: 978-0-140-44915-0

This bookclub is open to all paying members. I recognize some of the peeps joining, and know personally of another, in other words, a great handful have raised theirs hands to join in. Each will bring a lot to the table and it should make for good discussion.

Monday, March 23rd we begin.

Expect a video on the introduction to arrive in the next few days, possibly tomorrow. The video is exclusive to paid members.

If you’d like to join along for the ride and are not a paid member, upgrade your membership.

If you’re joining along, are a paid member, are reading either or both, or are not reading but planning to engage somewhat, go ahead into the chat, let me know you’re in and in what capacity, do that HERE.

I figure around a week until I read the first page of The Prince by Machiavelli. I’m coming up on the end of Natural Law and Human Rights by Pierre Manent. When finished, I plan to spend a few days with 1 John for my neighborhood’s men’s Bible study group. But I figure around a week until I officially dive into The Prince. 

What is beginning if you’re brand new?

My official book club is about to launch.

A few have raised their hand.

I recognize and know personally some of heavy hitters joining, which is going to make it a lot of fun.

Amazon delivered a pile of Pierre Manent books curated to help understand Machiavelli. I stumbled onto Manent recently via Daniel J. Mahoney, and knew I had to read his books, and serendipity struck, Manent’s works feature a substantive analysis of Machiavelli. Manent’s analysis of Machiavelli will benefit this book club immensely. I’m still looking through my bookshelf to see what else I can find to help unpack one of the most iconic, famous, and infamous figures of the modern West.

According to Jacques Barzun, the time period of Machiavelli and Luther birthed the modern West as we know it today. To get particular, Erasmus and Luther are the two who Barzun posits as birthing the modern West, and more so Luther. That it was Luther Barzun wrangles with, as Erasmus was the far greater mind, far greater writer, but it was what Luther offered to people that made him popular. I agree with Barzun, Erasmus is a far more potent, compelling, and far more intellectually powerful than Luther.

Pierre Manent, however, posits that Luther and Machiavelli combined birthed the modern West, along with a significant addition via Thomas Hobbes later. Manent recognizes the good in both Luther and Machiavelli, but he aptly details the consequences of their ideas. Manent particularly points out Machiavelli more so than Luther, and how Thomas Hobbes took Machiavelli’s ideas and made them more appetizing.

Machiavellians exist on both sides politically and inside of various worldviews. Machiavelli’s ideas imbue more than politics, they’re ingrained in art, personalities, business, dating, and we even find him abused and bastardized in a cynical manner in business and self-development.

Machiavelli matters. Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power is the Temu Machiavelli; Greene is a self-help author, a fun one; Machiavelli is the real deal. He’s had significant influence, impact, and continues to have significant influence and impact as his ideas have become almost second nature for some. He didn’t alter human nature, but he did, as Manent says in a trippy, eye-opening manner, contribute to the horizontal plane, a modern phenomena, of how humans make decisions. In short, the vertical plane is our intuition, inherited common sense, and the basic drives and motives from our agency. This is human nature, we share this in common with all humans. The basic human motives are: the pleasant, the useful, and the noble (or just). Our disposition, education (of all sorts not just school), and patterns dictate how our motives manifest. The motives expands into institutions and so on. The horizontal plane, however, is the more theoretical framework from where we, in a sense, obey to make a choice. A simple one, choosing actions and building an identity around opposing Donald Trump at all costs. The horizontal plane is the complex human added theories more unnatural to human nature, but people act from it, the vertical is included, but the horizontal is the person who buys “gender neutral” clothes for their baby. Trippy stuff, but Machiavelli is firmly on the horizontal plane in a distinct way.

This is why it’s important to read him and understand him. Gurus make Machiavelli into a life hack. That you can read him to 10x your passive income, seduce women, and have immense power, but instead of reading him, just buy this e-course. Pearl-clutching academics make Machiavelli into a monster (albeit many of them live in a Machiavelli influenced bubble, ironically).

Where is the truth?

Is it all bad?

Is it all good?

Personally, I’m curious to read Machiavelli since he arose out of the ashes of the Roman Empire’s western fall. That makes me curious as to what his perspective is, why he arose and was such a force, and what was the ghosts of that empire like.

I’m not a Machiavelli expert. But I will be learning it alongside you, and getting observations and wisdoms from some big hitter thinkers like Pierre Manent.

You don’t need to be reading either of the works to join along. You can think of it as a kind of MasterClass if you’re not reading along. This book club is open to ALL paying members. But I do hope to get a handful of brave souls to join in reading either or both of these iconic works.

The book club will feature access to the exclusive videos, chats, and you can ask questions.

If you haven’t signed up yet do so now.

We’re soon about to start.

If you are reading either of the works go ahead and say hi and tell us which of the books you plan to read in the chat thread Machiavelli seen HERE. If you plan to be an observer and not read, feel free to say hello in the chat if you wish — all paying members are welcome. Say hi HERE.

Now the book club is about to begin.

The first topic: Machiavelli.

We’re starting off first with Machiavelli’s iconic The Prince, then going into the no less iconic but lesser read The Discourses. These works and the concepts Machiavelli introduced in each forever altered our world. Politics, faith, art, psychology, worldviews, philosophy, and more feel the effect of Machiavelli.

How It’s Going to Work (You Don’t Need to Be Reading Either of the Books)

This book club is open to ALL paying members. You do not have to be reading either of the works to join the discussion. That’s unusual for a book club since it usually requires readers, but right now, with my current paid audience members, I want to get a discussion going. For those of you not reading it, if you join, you can see it as a Machiavelli masterclass, or even how to engage with a classic work. I’m also keenly aware that most people are interested in reading The Prince and not The Discourses, which is another factor why I’m opening it up to all paying members.

I hope people join me in reading either of the works, if you read two along with me, congrats. But if you choose one, thank you.

Here’s how I’m going to structure this.

Substack Chat

Here I will pop in randomly with observations, musings, questions, and maybe pictures of certain passages. My goal is to also engage with others, field questions, field other observations from those joining me with reading, and field general Machiavelli discussion.

I’ll create a specific Machiavelli thread, anything Machiavelli is a go. If you’re a member already, you can find the thread HERE.

Read-Along Videos

With my new YouTube, I’m doing read-along videos. I will read a passage or two and either riff, break it down, work through it, so on and so forth.

BUT for this book club, my Machiavelli read-along videos are exclusive to members. I will pop on video, read a passage, and break it down. Also, I will take some readings from other thinkers like Pierre Manent, Jacques Barzun, and Leo Strauss. From either my observations or these thinkers I will inject considerations and questions.

Q&A Videos

On Substack, I will also do some livestream videos where I will take questions and answer them, and if any brave souls wish to join, I will answer live questions.

Why Machiavelli

Machiavelli’s theories, philosophy, concepts, and ideas unquestionably altered the modern West. Each day we face the legacy of his ideas. The most notable influence Machiavelli had, which has perhaps, depending how you look at it, created a tear in our society, is how he countered, questioned, and discarded wholesale, The Gap.

The Gap?

It’s the between what we humans do and what we should do. It’s more than morals, while it is a moral and ethical outlook, it effects theories, stories, ideologies, so on and so forth. The what we do is how humans act. Machiavelli focused on how we act and believed the concepts of what we should do, our morals from faith, reason, and so forth, are foolish because humans, in his view, never did that and were incapable of doing that.

As Pierre Manent argues, Machiavelli’s theories alongside Luther’s theories which were published at around the same time, spawned a greater notion to supplant the Natural Law. Natural Law being, in a far too quick summary, the morals and codes we inherit, that are in a sense unspoken or concrete abstracts. Such as, we know from intuition that if we see a boy walking his puppy that going up and stomping on the puppy’s head is evil even if we can’t empirically claim why, it’s a when you see it you know it. And that if we see someone do that horrific act we know they’re a savage, something internally is broken inside of them. These laws expand into politics, to what we wear at a nice restaurant, and endless other aspects of our lives. We also have an innate idea of what we should do when we act that isn’t always steeped from theory. Just as we don’t need theory to act to help the boy and his puppy from a deranged monster, we don’t need theory to explain why certain pieces of art move us. But Machiavelli discards the ‘should’ wholesale, that has had consequences, arguably both good and bad.

I’m curious of the morality or immorality of Machiavelli. I don’t see him as wholly evil, his concepts have some merit but are they too jaded and cynical? And while some of his ideas could be granted the label “pragmatic” at what point, like his idea of wielding fear as a tool of control, do we realize it’s theory that sounds real but is divorced from reality?

I’m curious not solely for the political and social effect of Machiavelli, but on personal levels. If you or I encounter someone Machiavellian or ourselves act Machiavellian, what does this mean? I’m curious of the psychology and the nature of someone Machiavellian or when we act Machiavellian.

Note, I’m ordering Pierre Manent works to help me discuss Machiavelli. That I’ll cover in the read alongs, but a big reason, as of this writing I’m reading his Natural Law and Human Rights and it’s flooring me. He’s one of those authors and thinkers that when you read him your perspective and understanding of the world gains clarity. I’m also looking through current books I own to see what is said on Machiavelli. Currently I have a decent group to help these discussions: Jacques Barzun, Leo Strauss, James Burnham, Russell Kirk, and hopefully some others. These thinkers and authors will help us understand Machiavelli, surface questions for discussion, and give vetted observations.

A Snobby Note

I have a lot of copywriters on my list. I have a lot of internet marketers on my list. Many of you have been with me for a long time and I’m thankful.

Yet it must be said.

This book club, the topic of Machiavelli, is not for self-development purposes, or the purposes of bettering your sales, secret persuasion techniques, life hacking, or how to seduce women.

I’m longer out of copywriting now than I was in it. I’ve opened up about my car business past and I have way more experience with that, I’m way more of a car guy than a copy guy, and what I’m doing currently has nothing to do with copywriting. I have nothing against copywriters. I’m close personal friends with many copywriters and the world of copy is a zany place that I still respect. But nothing about this book club is astroturfed — no three secret Machiavellian hacks for better headlines or becoming the next Alex Hormozi.

To emphasize this point, here are a few questions and observations I plan to bring up in the book club:

• The combined effect of Martin Luther and Machiavelli in our world.

• The fall of the Roman Empire in the West gave rise to polycentrism led by Christianity, which made ideas flourish, such as Machiavelli’s — but given the boon of ideas why did Machiavelli’s ideas take root as a counter to what was happening?

• Natural Law versus Human Rights: what does Machiavelli get wrong and why is it so consequential?

This is not to scare anyone. I’m not a Machiavelli scholar. But if you come in expecting to crank your copywriting headlines or your persuasion skills, you’re in the wrong place. You can find that astroturfed guff at Alex and Books. Here, this book club, we’re engaging with the book from a place of curiosity, enjoyment, and substance.

When It Starts

I’m going to start it when I finish Natural Law and Human Rights by Pierre Manent. I’m a little over halfway in that book, but it’s slow going given the depth of the book and having a three month old daughter.

My best guess, right now, two weeks or less.

If you’re going to read along with me, do not worry about your reading speed. I’m going pretty slow as of late. I’m not going to assign chapters to be read by a certain date. This book club is at your own pace. And some of you will not be reading but will be watching and asking questions.

If you’re going to join along, here are the versions I’m reading:

• The Prince: ISBN: 978-0-140-44915-0

• The Discourses: ISBN: 978-0-140-44428-5

Both are Penguin Classics editions and both can be had at Amazon. I read introductions and talk about introductions as those can set a tone for what we read, and introductions can at times need context or even disagreement.

Again, I’m beginning with The Prince.

I will post more updates the closer I get.

What To Do

If you wish to join this book club reading or not, first, you must be a paid member. Go to the chat in Substack, there I have a thread in the chat called Machiavelli. If you plan to read along, reply “I’m in and will read The Prince.” If you plan to read The Discourses instead, announce that, if both books, announce that. If you’re planning to not read along but will join in on the conversation, simply reply, “I’m in.” And of course, any paid member at any time during my reading of Machiavelli can ask a question or join in.

This book club is the first of many and your participation will help shape future book clubs.

If you want in and you’re not a paid member then upgrade your membership.

As I’ve teased for a year, I’m adding video to my repertoire. I have a documentary piece ready to go. It was filmed last year. It will be released, but we may reshoot some elements. While I was filming last year, we tried to flesh out Youtube videos, but my vision was aimless. After moving to Substack, the vision took shape.

But with a move and baby on the way, I did not practice shooting video after that initial filming.

I wanted to do my first video to my members. I had an itching to finally do video. I did a kind of impromptu livestream.

I knew it was rough. But like Bill Murray says, you only get better when it really stinks at first. And if you want to make it better, because you know it’s awful, and how bad it is, then that’s usually a sign you’re going to get better at it.

And again, it is bad.

First, I’m sideways.

I thought the camera would have adjusted when I turned it horizontal. A gracious member joined the livestream, and I kept tilting my head to look at his questions and comments. That should have been the red light going off that the video was sideways.

Second, I had an idea of what to say, but assuming I was going to grumble at being on camera, I, instead, was more like a young kid at Christmas. I got excited. So I rambled and rambled and rambled. Topics and ideas and various angles of ideas were racing in my mind, and I puked it all out. It’s not even a Donald Trump “weave.” It’s an excited ramble and ramble and ramble.

Third, it stinks. It’s 50 minutes or so of riffing without much direction.

But I loved it. I’ll leave it up, awful as it is. And it is bad. Yet I did it, and as much as it stinks, I know I can get good at it.

I enjoyed it. I had fun. And I know it will only get better. A lot better.

I’m ready to do the next one. But for the next one, I need structure to keep it focused.

With that, I’d like to do a Q&A.

It’s going to be Roman Empire themed.

Read more

Read more

I’m doing my best to get some reading in, but with baby on the way, still settling into a new house, while dealing with the quirky buyer of my house in Boise (which became a bit of a battle between three buyers out of the blue Thursday of last week), and handling projects for my new house — my reading has been short sips.

But, sometime this week, either tomorrow 10/14 or Thursday 10/16, I’d like to try a live video.

It will be open to all private members. But the focus are to those who joined me in this test launch. I put some topics in the chat, and I hope with the live video we can interact in some way. We’ll find out.

If you didn’t join the test launch, but want to hear a bit about Suetonius, then by all means watch.

I want to get a kind of head count. The time I’m thinking is 10:30 am Mountain Daylight Time.

But either in the comments or in the chat, raise your hand if you’re interested, and let me know if that time or something …

Read more

We’re reading The Lives of the Caesars by Suetonius, the Tom Holland translation.

A few of you have begun. I’m beginning today (hopefully I start today, the new house keeps throwing projects at me out of the blue).

My Next Steps

Again, I’m hoping to begin the book today. I will certainly start reading it by tomorrow.

I do read the introductions of classics. They can offer important context, guidelines, and understanding. More on this below.

After I read the introduction, I’m going to try a live video on Substack to discuss what Tom Holland lays out for us. It will be my first time trying it, my office is still chaotic with boxes, and I’m clueless to how the livestream works, but I’ll only learn by doing it. And I hope some of you joining me on this endeavor can, and if you can, join me on that livestream.

In my members chat, under the Suetonius thread, I’ll start posting my musings, analysis, questions, brain farts, and other topics. If you’re in on this endeavor, I ask you to do the same. Converse with each other, ask questions, whatever it is, the best way we can get the most out of this book is good dialogue.

If you’ve begun, feel free to chime into the chat. I’ll be catching up shortly on it.

Below I’ll share some of my process on reading introductions in a book like this, and some influenced ruminations of this book.

Treating Introductions with Deliberation

Here, copy and pasted, is what I wrote in my members chat on how to handle introductions (with some minor edits):

Read more

Today, my afternoon is hectic with a furniture delivery, so I won’t get much reading in today. But tomorrow I hope to crank, and I’m hoping to finish by Thursday or Friday. That means later this week or this weekend, I’ll begin.

If you have the book, you have commented in the chat, and want to start, go right ahead. And no worries if you’re not ready to start, the discussion will be open, so if you start later, that’s fine.

Note

I do read the introductions. Holland is an esteemed Roman historian. I’m thinking of doing a live video chat after I finish the introduction to discuss what we’re about to dive into, and to discuss Holland’s perspective.

So do read the introduction.

If You’re New And Have No Idea What I’m Talking About

A feature of my Substack, since I moved over here fairly recently, will be a book club. I had planned on doing a sexy a…

Read more

As we mature we learn that some people evolve past those youthful, utopian visions of love; that some people never evolve past their most handicapping patterns of behavior; and know all too well that some men or women are toxic nightmares leaving a wake of regret, consequences, and confusion. We hope to become good partners; we hope to find good partners. To find what we hope requires work. As we face romance’s trials of innocence and anguish, we, if we're healthy souls, evolve. When we evolve we gain a spiritual depth. That all has a nature to it. And those stories are never quite told on the pages of fiction. Familiar psychology is much easier to put inside the pages of a book. That doesn’t mean that familiar psychology is always trite and banal, yet it’s difficult to combine psychology, human nature, and the nature of romance. All that nature is a vast spectrum, simple at times, complex at others, both erratic and consistent.

Thomas Hardy’s Far From The Madding Crowd does paint that vast spectrum. It’s tough to call Far From The Madding Crowd a love story. Hardy paints the nature of courtship via the nature of four characters, a woman and three men. You will not find neat and tidy love stories in Far From The Madding Crowd. Hardy is a realist. Hardy laces character storylines with coincidence, chance, consequences, and the tragicness and irrationality of human nature. Hardy lures the reader into sentimental reflection. We see the moments of our youth when we idealized someone. For men, we see our crush go for the cad. Women will recognize how youthful whimsy can sometimes blind the ugly truth of a man’s low character. Both men and women can see how some people on paper, look to be perfect, look to be right, but upon dating, we discover that a superficial checklist does not equate complementary values, worldviews, depth, and capacity. All that, Hardy depicts. Hardy’s Madding Crowd is not a love story; it’s a revelation of human nature.

Subscribe now

Far From The Madding Crowd - Victorian Realism

Hardy first published the story in 1874. As was custom then, the story was published as a series in a magazine. Hardy, however, edited and revised the story for decades after its first publication. One reason for the ongoing edits, censorship. Well, censorship may be too strong a term. The publisher and Hardy, more or less, decided to play it safe. The story isn’t in any way lewd. No graphic scenes exist. But Hardy’s poetic phrasings paint the erotic. He’s not speculative, euphemistic, or cliched — the erotic is obvious without graphic detail. This is a rare talent to make what is often subjective objective without saying it explicitly. Hardy is a Victorian realist. Realist literature takes care to depict reality and avoid speculation. Realist literature is associated with Realist art. Realist art captures moments and captures the atmosphere in the sense that we see more than just what is painted. For instance, if it’s a painting of a man sitting on a chair, we pick up his internal atmosphere. That atmosphere could be sadness, happiness, boredom, or reflection. Hardy has only words and not a paintbrush. He uses style and rhetorical devices to give palpable life to a scene. And when Hardy paints a scene with sensual tones, or a scene conjuring the sacred parts of the erotic, he creates an atmosphere without upsetting Victorian sensibilities. He does the same when he portrays a character’s religious misunderstandings to depict that character’s lack of education.

A great example of this realism is when Hardy depicts the human nature to anthropomorphize a house.

Lively voices were heard this morning in the upper rooms, the main staircase to which was of hard oak, the balusters being turned and moulded in the fashion of heavy bedpost, the handrail as stout as a parapet-top, and the stairs themselves continually twisting round like a person trying to look over his shoulder. Going up we find the floors above to have a very irregular surface, rising to hillocks, sinking into valleys, to be eaten into innumerable vermiculation. Every wind replies by a clang to the opening and shutting of every door, a tremble follows every bustling movement, and a creak accompanies a walker about the house like a spirit, wherever he goes.

Hardy makes the house live and breathe — the twisting of the stairs, and the vermiculation (that’s the worm-eaten wood effect). Humans anthropomorphize a house, and Hardy’s prose depicts this natural impulse. We get more than a good description of the house. The house rouses to life with the “clang” of doors opening and shutting, the “tremble” following every movement, and the “creak” clinging to a person “like a spirit.”

Victorian realism at its finest.

The Story

The story centers on four characters, and a fifth impends in the background.

• Bathsheba Everdene

• Gabriel Oak

• Frank Troy — “Sergeant Troy”

• William Boldwood

And impending in the background….

• Fanny Robin

And the frenzy befalls in Hardy’s fictional English countryside, Wessex. Wessex comprises multiple counties in Hardy’s world. The southwestern England where Hardy grew up influenced his Wessex. Hardy used Wessex throughout his career and he used certain characters in multiple stories. Far From The Madding Crowd introduces Wessex in the Hardy canon. The specific location is the fictional town of Casterbridge, a small, countryside farming community.

Hardy enjoyed injecting frenzy into the idyllic. When we envision the idyllic, like a farming village in the English countryside, we picture a cozy agrarian community of friendly neighbors and simple living. We give zero thought to the possible frenzy occurring in that town. The word “madding” means acting in a frenzied manner, or frenzied. The phrase madding crowd according to Merriam Webster’s 11th Edition implies the crowded world of human activity and strife.

Strife.

Frenzy.

Those two words define Hardy’s story and characters. In my perspective, Hardy aimed to capture the growing pains of youthful romance; and he aimed to capture how some men and women never evolve past those youthful growing pains. And Hardy details brilliantly that for some people, the bad patterns are innate, psychological —the person is broken, toxic, or undateable. For others either the inability to evolve or their refusal to evolve, and that they can’t or won’t evolve, leaves a trail of internal and external turmoil in their wake.

Guys will recognize the youthful physical and emotional frenzy of their first time being in close physical proximity to a strikingly gorgeous woman. That initial jolt, then stealing her into private corners of a frenzied mind and then planning out your entire life with her (and some guys, the more sophomoric, plan out a sexual conquest).

Ladies will know the frenzy they feel when certain male suitors take the slightest compliment as flirting and turn it into overbearing annoyance. That frenzy of wanting to be nice yet wanting to tell the him no, coinciding with the near manic back and forth of “Why did I say that innocuous thing and why does he think that means we’re getting married?”

Hardy shows us the nature of puppy love. And how it tends to wear off when we approach our early twenties but can linger in the form of frenzied hopeless romantic visions. And he shows that some people never evolve past those youthful growing pains. And how when someone can’t evolve past romantic idealizations, it destabilizes them psychologically. And if that person is already unstable, horrific consequences entail.

And here’s what makes Hardy’s writing engrossing. Victorian realism works to depict reality without any idealizations. It works to refrain from romantic idealizations. Hardy depicts the characters as they are. But men and women, especially when they’re young, idealize, and force a person into their vision versus seeing them as they are. His characters idealize, as people are wont to do, and he lets the reader see the reality.

The Innate Nature of Courtship

I’ve come across a few people claiming Hardy’s characters are archetypes explaining men and women. That each character resembles a neat and tidy grand unified theory summing up all women, simpy men, and the perfect man. I can see where that view comes from but it’s myopic. That view comes near some crumbs of truth, but it misses the rich spectrum of character, human nature, experience, and the deeper psychology of a person.

Life doesn’t fit into neat connect-the-dots post hoc explanations, nor do people. Sure, people fall into familiar behaviors and patterns. Men and women do have their inherent emotional and psychological differences. People can fit into an archetype, but that often doesn’t tell us everything about that person. Some people evolve and change. Others do not evolve, and if they don’t, as they age and face life’s unknowns, whatever they come up against, will have tradeoffs, consequences, and outcomes. Exceptions exist, and those exceptions are not the norm, nor do they refute the norm. And within the norm, we find variegation. Hardy shows all of this.

The reader will recognize themselves, or someone else, or their youthful self, or a time of their lives, or a time in someone else’s life, and so on, with Hardy’s characters. This makes it real. We know these characters. We may see ourselves or a portion of ourselves in them

For instance, men and women will know of a few men similar to the character, Troy. Either having experienced a Troy in person or hearing of a Troy. But Hardy still injects into Troy, the sides of human nature we all have. Good, healthy men wouldn’t mind the charisma of Troy but enjoy that charisma without the malicious undercurrents of cold, deceptive, and cynical conquest. We’d want it more in the style of a character like Chevy Chase’s Fletch or Eddie Murphy’s Axel Foley. Both men have a moral compass. They have an authentic charisma and humor well-suited for flirting. Yet we see how Troy’s compass is pure conquest and then bail. He presents the image of vigor and strength, but it’s pageantry, and behind the pageantry exists a weak, pathetic man.

Hardy takes the reader back to our hopeless romantic periods. He takes us to how we lost our youthful romantic innocence. I couldn’t help but think of Bob Seger’s iconic Night Moves after I read Madding Crowd. The song is a story of the changing seasons of life and our romantic, intimate sentiments. Seger sings of the sweet summertime, that period right when we hit early adulthood. Yet when we hit, for some, a lingering youth, sensitivity, and innocence can’t quite put into context what we’re doing with romance, especially when it turns physical. And when Seger sings about autumn closing in, for those of us in our forties and beyond, we look back at the sweetness of that summertime. We don’t yearn, necessarily, for the person we practiced the night moves with, but we have context, reflection, and an endearing appreciation of that time. The appreciation is now knowing the context of working on mysteries without any clues before we head into the final seasons of life “closing in.” It’s sentimental beauty, rich with memories, rich with lessons, and a period that colored our soul.

But life is not always pretty. Not everyone loses their innocence in the way Seger sings it. For some, their innocence is robbed in some manner. It’s not the youthful heartbreak, where at the time we think we’ll never get over it, to then only years later barely remembering the person, but an action or event that truly robs that innocence. Hardy shows the frenzy of stolen innocence. That has consequences, sometimes devastating consequences.

Hardy doesn’t follow typical hero’s journey narratives. He likes to use chance, coincidence, and the randomness life can throw our way. For those of my readers who never used a dating app, and remember dating before them, we know how much chance plays a part in how we date. Even if we meet someone in our social circle, we quickly realize how crazy it was for our schedule to line up for that encounter at that moment. I met my fiancée after mistakenly slamming a door in her face. Had I not been shocked by the loud slam, which made me look behind me to then see a beautiful girl standing there, I would have walked on, oblivious to her behind me. That is a matter of chance. And so much lined up for that moment. The traffic lights on the way home. My rummaging in the center console to find my apartment keys. And I was out on a day I normally don’t drive. And her schedule had to line up as well. It was pure chance, pure serendipity.

Let’s look at the characters. I’ll do my best to represent these characters and will work to not spoil the ending. I’m focusing on the character, the disposition, and what they represent.

Subscribe now

Gabriel Oak

Oak is the first character we meet. He’s a shepherd. He’s tall, awkward in his movements, and he’s cocksure. He owns the common veneer of confidence many men in their twenties enjoy before some — not all — mature into their masculinity. A man enters their twenties wanting to prove themselves, wanting others to validate and respect them as established. Yet traces of boyhood along with the raging hormone of teenage craziness still linger. This stage comprises a frenzy. You left boyhood, you’re a young male, full of raging hormones, and you’ve entered manhood, but you haven’t yet developed effectiveness or maturity. And Oak is a late bloomer. He’s not immature. Rather, he’s a late bloomer in understanding his values, worth, and effectiveness.

Oak is somewhat aware he’s at the edge of maturing. He’s aware he’s entering manhood. Yet his disposition early on is more of a sheepish cocksure. But that embracing of manhood, his willingness to embrace it, means he understands responsibility. He accepts the challenge of responsibility. Yet, like most young men, Oak wants to be at the stage of being established already. He wants to be taken seriously. But establishment and being respected come with experience.

Oak is determined. He’s a man of humble means, but he’s betting on himself. And Oak is betting on his self-growth, he’s self-erudite and seems aware of how this gives him an edge. He has books on bettering himself and bettering his craft. Oak isn’t an intellectual, but he’s smart, and he’s willing to learn not only how his craft works, but intellectual endeavors as well. He wants to be a man of personal depth and substance. Oak is a man of faith. He doesn’t evangelize others. But he works to be a Godly man. A Godly man in the traditional sense, a man of morals, hard work, faith, taste, integrity, purpose, and discipline. And these are all great, highly valuable traits of a man, but when you’re young, or when you’re still sheepish like Oak, you’re still cultivating these traits.

Oak is a late bloomer when it comes to women. Early in the story, he’s plagued by a sense of hopeless romanticism. Oak was brought up with Christian morals, and those guide his sexual morals. As in, he’s not a shithead bro obsessed with sexual conquest, despite his hormones raging. He’s sensitive, he’s intrigued by love, and the prospect of starting a family. He owns an understanding, at least conceptually, of being choosy. He wants a chaste woman of good standing and good values.

But that hopeless romanticism and the nature of his environment, he’s about to encounter something sensitive men will never forget.1

Not sensitive in the manner that he can’t withstand bad news; sensitive in the manner of connection to his moral intuitions and how the world is interacting directly or indirectly to his personal radar. A sensitive man in this manner is choosy in whom he desires. Even if he’s idealizing a woman, he still consciously or unconsciously feels out how she aligns with his worldviews and his tastes of right or wrong. But he’s also sensitive to the effect — consciously or unconsciously — the woman wields.

Bathsheba Everdene

Oak from a distance spots a woman in a horse-drawn carriage. And that woman is not just beautiful — she’s striking and distinct.

That woman is Bathsheba Everdene. Bathsheba is about twenty years old.

Striking.

Distinct.

Let’s look at that.

Oak is 28. He’s a man of frugal means. We get a sense he’s lived in the English Countryside for his entire life. He’s not a complete rube. He’s worldly. He has taste. He has depth. But he has not yet seen a truly striking woman.

For men, especially sensitive men (see the note above for the definition), we remember when in person we came across a woman who stood out, lookswise. And it’s different than just “the hot girl.” Raging hormones rule teenage males. During that time, males recognize “hotness” in or what comprises “hotness” in its most simple and sophomoric forms. It's a simple "She's hot brah!" And when asked what makes her hot, it's along the lines of "She just is" and maybe a sophomoric expansion with "Her body is bangin'!" That recognition is inherent, but a time arrives for some men, when they start to recognize distinctness. Certainly, personal tastes come into it, but we come to recognize what separates a woman from others. Sometimes it’s one feature, like a wider smiler. Sometimes it’s a few features combined. It’s almost unusual to see it. For an example, Kathy Ireland had a distinct wider jawline that made her striking blue eyes stand out. Consider Jennifer Grey before the nose job. Post her rhinoplasty, Jennifer Grey is still a beautiful woman, but her old nose is distinct. And Jennifer Grey may not be considered a supermodel, but she’s undoubtedly beautiful, and her old nose along with her facial features gave distinct color to her expressions. And if you add physical features distinctness -- bust, height, figure, hair, birthmark, and so on -- it heightens distinctness.

That strikes a frenzy.

Bathsheba is striking.

Bathsheba is distinct.

From what I gather, Bathsheba’s face has a sultry, playful essence. And her figure is one that not even the most modest of Victorian outfits can make modest. In sum, Hardy places a woman into the English Countryside who could trigger an avalanche.

When Oak first sees Bathsheba, he only sees her face. She’s riding in a carriage with her aunt. The carriage stops. Bathsheba’s aunt steps away from the carriage. Then Hardy paints that initial moment when men or women see a gorgeous man or woman: we instinctually want to look. We know it’s rude to stare, and past staring it can either send signals or get creepy depending on the person. And modern society tells us it's bad to judge or to look at someone beautiful for more than a second. But humans recognize beauty. Whether it’s in a painting, a sunset, or a person. And when we see it, it arrests us for a moment. Bathsheba’s beauty arrests Oak. And Hardy gives us a glimpse into Bathsheba’s character and her current season of life.

When the aunt steps away from the carriage, Bathsheba looks around to ensure she has a moment of privacy. When she believes she has that moment, she pulls out a mirror and adores herself with enormous self-satisfaction. On one end, we see her vanity. Oak spots this too. And most men, as Oak does, would say she’s vain. And that is true. Most authors would leave it here, but Hardy is not most authors, he shows us something more complex. On the other side of her self-satisfaction, we see a woman coming to terms with the power her beauty wields, and she’s enjoying it.

Consider this.

She’s 20 years old.

She’s exiting a common teen phase of feeling awkward, maybe even conflicted with her beauty.

Many teen women will dislike a physical feature of theirs. It could be their eyes, maybe it’s their legs, their nose, their height, their figure, their bust and so on. That feature, in this stage, can sap their confidence. It may prevent them from trying a sport or trying out for the play, or they see it as a curse. And that feature or features, often draws attention. And if it’s from teen boys or immature men of the opposite sex, which there are always plenty of, that attention is sexualized. Which at that age, can be terrifying, confusing, and overwhelming. And women, the same age and older, will also project their jealousy onto her. That’s another form of attention not feeling so great. And at that young age, young women don’t quite grasp the full context of why they get that attention and get it in such one-dimensional ways.

Add on top of that, the growing pains of comparison. Teens have a nasty habit of wanting to have the features of someone else. A tall teen girl may hate her long legs. An athletic framed girl may hate she doesn’t have the skinny physical features of the tall skinny girl. And when girls suddenly enter womanhood, their tall legs can feel weird, awkward, or clumsy. Or the athletic girl may think her legs look bulky or fat or weird. And with growth spurts, it does feel physically weird, and since the body is catching up, a feature may be a source of pain. This is another example of frenzy.

All of this creates an awkwardness with the self. Boys go through it too. But teen gals start to get a ton of attention they never got before.

But as we enter the seasons of adulthood, we begin to come to terms with ourselves. Sometimes in a delayed manner, and sometimes it happens quickly.

Some women come to grasp their features and what they mean. The conflict stops. They no longer feel awkward with themselves. They no longer hate a physical feature. They’re better suited to handle the immaturity of men or women who ogle. The comparisons and desires to want to look like “that famous actress” die down. It may never subsume fully, but it dies down. And they may come to recognize the power it can wield. Or it can be more like an athlete hitting a growth spurt, going through a period of feeling awkward and out of the body, and then arriving into their new height with a newfound sense of self-confidence. Whatever it is they come to embrace it rather than reject it or find it weird, bad, or any of the other spite they directed towards it.

Bathsheba is in that stage of acceptance versus rejection. She’s coming into her own, and she’s deeply satisfied.

Hardy triples down on the frenzy.

In a subsequent scene, Oak spots Bathsheba riding a horse. Like the earlier scene, Bathsheba believes no one else can see her. She looks carefully around, hoping to ensure she’s private. Under the assumption no one can see her, which implies her sense of chastity and modesty, she begins trick riding. A woman riding on a horse, to some perspectives, is sensual. Whether Hardy was using that factor, I’m fifty-fifty. But, when a woman starts doing certain tricks on a horse, it does offer a sensual flair. And how Hardy describes Bathsheba, borders on erotic. She took care to ensure no one was seeing her, and her movements and Hardy’s description of her movements conjure the erotic.

But we get a sense of something else. Hardy does this throughout the story with the character’s physical features, albeit man or woman. How she is moving on the horse, how much balance, force, grace, and athleticism; how her sensuality wades into the erotic, we get an image that her body is striking. He gives her a sense of athleticism and has her move in a way that has an erotic mystique.

This generates more frenzy.

She causes a frenzy in the men who see her. Even other women in the story recognize her distinctness. And like the mirror scene, we get a sense that Bathsheba is now reveling in her womanhood. She’s reveling in how she’s moving. She knows she wields a power, she’s starting to grasp a sense of what that means. What may have once been a source of killing her confidence, is now a source of her confidence.

And to add more frenzy, Hardy throughout the story, with realism flair, reveals that Bathsheba has a voluptuous figure. To be less graceful than Hardy, she’s busty and arrests others with her figure. Hardy will make a quick mention of her bosom via characters noticing, like an elevator glance, and then surround that glance with the descriptions of spring, ample fields, and so on. It depicts the sacred with beauty versus being crass. And he does it in a way that does not raise the eyebrows of censors.

Bathsheba while she is reveling coming into her own with her features, we still see her care for modesty, hoping for a private space. That little glimpse of her awareness of modesty reveals a character element, she owns a capacity for growth. She’s aware she causes a frenzy in others. But this moment, she’s coming to accept herself in some manner. It’s early. She’s young. But it’s a beautiful scene. A scene, I believe, that both men and women can relate to. That time in our lives when we realize we’re good at something, or we have a physical advantage, or our skillset goes from awkward to competent. We’re aware that it’s a bit taboo to be enjoying our capability, to cherish it for a few moments. Maybe we think we shouldn’t be good at it or get attention for our feature, but for a fleeting few moments, in our own privacy, we revel in it.

Hardy doesn’t make Bathsheba the impossible ideal of a unicorn, nor does he make her a two-dimensional vain hot girl. Had he done that, the story would be sophomoric and have read like trash. Bathsheba has capacity. Bathsheba is the product of good raising, yet it’s clear she lacked or was robbed of particular guidance. That’s likely due to her being orphaned at a young age. We see the immaturity of her self-satisfaction with the powerful effects she wields over men. We see it in the story how she’s a bit myopic around charming cads out for conquest. She’s chaste. She’s modest. But, perhaps, whoever raised her, felt uneasy or ignored guiding Bathsheba about certain men and women up to no good.

Bathsheba is penniless but seemingly comes from a family that once had money. She inherits her uncle’s farm. And it’s a sizable estate. This reveals she owns traits that make a family member trust her. And she’s willing to work. When she inherits the farm, she’s determined to do it herself. While she is stubborn, and some men question working for her, she’s capable. She falters at times but keeps going.

She’s vain. She’s rash. She overindulges with the effect she wields over men. And this sophomoric side of her behavior gets her into trouble. And she knows when she’s the reason for her predicament. Yet she has an insecurity of wanting to keep some kind of lifeline to what she should cut off. She gets caught up indulging in her effects over a suitor. And that shallow indulgence keeps her in a state of frenzy. She wants to stop that frenzy, but her immaturity, her rashness, and her appetite for her indulgence keep her shackled to this frenzy.

That capacity, that potential, that depth, all clashes with her superficiality. That's human nature.

Boldwood

William Boldwood is the looks-good-on-paper bachelor. He’s handsome. He’s wealthy. He runs a sizable estate. He’s an esteemed gentleman at the age of forty. But something is askew. Readers will notice Boldwood’s fantasy idealizations and projections of Bathsheba. Call it one-it-is. Call it simping. Whatever it is, something is off.

Hardy uses Oak, Boldwood, and Troy to depict the spectrum of male idealization. Oak resembles the hopeless romantic side of the spectrum. He’s a bit innocent, a bit shy, a bit late to find his romantic footing, and he’s sentimental. His mind turns into a frenzy when he meets Bathsheba. It’s his first time encountering such a beauty, and a beauty with capacity. And as he gains some courtship experience, he can see her follies. So while he idealizes her, he’s able to keep his feet on the ground and not go overboard.

Troy, I’ll get to in a moment.

Boldwood sits on the extreme ends of idealization. Boldwood is the older guy going onto a young woman’s Instagram account and replies to every story and likes every post while believing she is the “perfect woman.” We can forgive a boy doing that. But Boldwood is forty years old doing it. That’s a small hint that he left the reservation long ago.

We know Bathsheba feeds off the frenzy she induces in men. When she attends Church or does chores in town she revels in how her figure and her beauty cause a frenzy.

Boldwood is considered by many to be a good suitor, yet it’s stated early that he doesn’t show much interest in any woman. It at first adds a mystique since not much is known of his past. It seems as if he’s being very particular or choosy. Boldwood is known as a gravely serious man. He’s all business. That’s all that is known of him.

The first time Bathsheba sees Boldwood she’s offended that he pays her no attention. She feels rebuffed. She’s not used to this. When the notion comes out that Boldwood might be the biggest catch in town, she’s further offended that she’s non-existent to him.

She’s competitive. Boldwood’s ignoring of Bathsheba is too much for her. She’s aware of her power of her figure and her beauty. But Boldwood looks impervious to her gifts, and that she hates. Bathsheba decides to write Boldwood a Valentine. She plays it off as a spoof, but it’s a ploy for attention. She also knows sending this Valentine is unbecoming, uncouth, and very, very forward. She does refrain from immediately sending it. But instead of considering what she’s doing, she puts her moral considerations of this valentine to a coin toss. The coin toss favors her sending the Valentine. She sends it.

The Valentine says only: Marry Me.

Boldwood reads it. At first, he’s confused. But then he stews on it. Then he does what some men are wont to do, he envisions a perfect woman and a perfect life. He projects a fantasy life with her. He goes wild with this vision. He goes neurotic with it. He does all this without knowing who Bathsheba is or what she looks like. His mind immediately churns up his vision of his ideal feminine being.

Men do this.

Not all men.

But men do this. Especially younger men. A fifteen-year-old getting a random text saying Marry me is apt to turn that teen's mind into a frenzy. He may picture the woman who sent it to be his high school crush. He may picture her to be along the lines of a celebrity babe. And the youthful mind, a mind that still has a foot in puppy love, projects a fairytale. Boldwood is doing this youthful idealization and projection.

Keep in mind, healthy and capable men grow out of this phase --- Boldwood is forty.

Life grows men out of this phase in a variety of ways. Their first girlfriend breaks their heart, and a few months later they realize it was puppy love. Some grow out of it after the guidance of parenting. Men will come to learn and see the dynamics of romance, intimacy, or physical intimacy and grow out of frenzied idealizations. That’s healthy.

But there are men, who do not grow out of this phase. And it manifests unhealthily. A man will subjugate all values and want women to fit his vision. He will do things like have covert contracts with her. Or they’ll set bizarre expectations, as Boldwood does. They feel entitled to the vision. Or they’ll go on Instagram and follow thirst-trapping fitness influencers, and comment, “Beautiful! You’re perfect!” And have an entire relationship with that influencer in their mind, and think “Only if she knew how well I could treat her.” This is weakness. This is a defect of character. And couple that with someone who has bad wiring in the brain, it does not end well.

I’ll leave it there to not give away the story.

Back to the Valentine.

So Boldwood’s mind races and projects a fantasy.

He wants to find this Bathsheba.

He does.

Her beauty is overwhelming. Her beauty is more than what he envisioned. And this cages his mind into a frenzy. Boldwood did not expect, nor would most males, a beauty like Bathsheba to send the note, marry me.

Consider this a moment. Hardy depicts a fairly common male behavior of reading too much into a girl’s note. But the note is heavy-handed, it’s Marry me. That’s not I like you, that’s not “you’re hot” that’s not even a provocative picture. Instead, Marry me carries a deep gravity. His mind is running.

Again, men envision a woman in this scenario. It’s like teens going on Reddit forums and picturing “CuteOmahaGal99” as a pretty girl from Omaha.

But it’s Bathsheba. It’s not just a pretty girl. It’s a striking, distinct, buxom, gorgeous stunner. It’s as if CuteOmahaGal99 agrees to come to prom, but it turns out that girl is Sydney Sweeney or a woman in that league.

That is like dropping ten nuclear bombs of frenzy onto the male mind. And remember, this nuclear attack is being dropped onto an unhealthy mind, onto a mind ruled by frenzy.

Bathsheba’s negative trait of indulging in the effect she has over men has now put her into a predicament with an unhealthy, manic man. That tees up a whole lot of frenzy.

Francis “Sergeant” Troy

Troy is a cad. He’s all about sexual conquest. He’s charming. He’s handsome. He’s charismatic (but many men and women know his type), he can bullshit his way into sounding smart in a moment, and he has game. But he’s also immature, impulsive, weak, lazy, immoral, and cynical.

Troy is what teen boys may ephemerally view as cool, as some teen boys used to see Hugh Hefner as cool. In a group of young men, having a night on the town, Troy may be seen as fun. He gets laid. He charms hot women. He’s been at his game for a while. He’s twenty-four, and fairly experienced in seducing women. On paper, like Boldwood, he looks to have a lot going on. But some men, mature healthy men, know Troy is pathetic. Some women as well, either those who can see through the bullshit or have experienced a Troy in some form, also know Troy is pathetic. His whole life is game, the dynamics of game; his whole moral compass is getting laid. That’s pathetic.

A reader can compartmentalize a little, and recognize the charm of his game. Hardy even has some female characters who find Troy’s looks and charm amusing and even flattering, but they know to stay away. They know he’s a dangerous cad.

With Troy, Hardy gives us the sort of man who robs a woman’s innocence. And Troy robs innocence twice in the story. And one robbing is devastating. He’s not a rapist. But he takes the innocence of one girl (I don’t want to give any spoilers, because the description of the scene where it’s apparent what Troy did is stirring) in a manner that carries serious consequences.

Troy injects frenzy into the hearts of women. But his behavior surfaces consequential frenzy. And since he’s a weak man, and is given to the impulses created by his own frenzy for conquest, this casts him and those associated with him into frenzy.

Fanny Robin

Fanny is an undertow in the story. I won’t give away much here, as I don’t want to detract from one of the most moving scenes (one of the most moving scenes I’ve ever read) in the story.

Fanny is depicted as sweet, pretty, naive, earnest, fanciful, yet lacking worldliness. And that lack might be because she never learned it, never had the guidance, lacks maturity, or many of the other possibilities. It’s unknown. Yet we know she’s a sweet person. And we all have come across that man or woman, especially a young man or woman, who is easily taken advantage of. And this easily taken advantage of is not always necessarily their fault or that they’re dumb, but sometimes it is their fault and they are dumb. Life is nuanced that way.

Fanny is the type who heard “don’t sin” and likely nothing more than that when it comes to chastity, romance, or sex. Merely telling a young person just to “not sin” or “don’t have sex” and nothing else, and leaving it at that, is dumb, misguided, lacks sophistication, and sets the person up for outright failure. It doesn’t cultivate the tools in that person, in that teen boy or girl, to repress their impulses at a time when their impulses are going bonkers. Fanny is stuck in a girlishness. By no fault of her own, Troy strips her of her innocence. And she’s unable to see it. But here’s where Hardy makes things so real. Sure, young people make dumb decisions. But also, young people are the agents of their decisions. While 19-year-olds may not quite grasp the gravity of a decision, they will know that they are doing something they’re not supposed to do. With a young mind, one that may be naive or lacked an earlier guidance, or heck, maybe just unchecked burning curiosity, they will make a myopic decision.

Fanny is, in some ways, a consensual participant, and one could say even an eager participant, in what she does with Troy. But she’s fooled. She’s fooled by a cad obsessed with conquest. She, like Bathsheba, gets promised the world and is overwhelmed with a charming, handsome, and playful man. Fanny sees him as a Prince Charming. She believes this older gentleman will sweep her off her feet. And Troy is callous, but his callousness is a result of his ambiguity. He does seem to develop feelings for Fanny, but they’re more out of his puerile vision of her. And his outright drive for sexual conquest robs her of her innocence. Yes, she’s willing. Yes, she’s aware of what she’s doing. But Troy’s behavior, his actions, his deception, and his carelessness, betray how weak morals drive his actions. He is the weaker person.

Fanny also gives us a window into Bathsheba’s immaturity. When Bathshaba learns that Troy is tangled up with Fanny, she gets competitive in a way she knows is bad. She faces a frenzy of the worst parts of her immaturity battling with her maturity. Bathsheba beats herself up in one moment from a place of regret for not seeing who Troy truly was, but then in the next moment, she feels like she’s second choice to Fanny, and she can’t quite grasp how she, Bathsheba Everdene, could ever be second fiddle. And Hardy goes very — VERY — primal with it. This creates a manic scene, because Bathsheba knows, correctly, she’s being ignoble. The base instinct that comes out, is part of human nature, and she wrangles with it.

Subscribe now

The Frenzy of Human Nature

We can envision ourselves as a fly on the wall watching and knowing these characters. Hardy doesn’t teach us moral lessons, yet we see people’s morals or lack of them at play. Hardy doesn’t teach us the psychology of male idealization, yet we see male idealization at play. Hardy gives us reality. Frenzy occurs in human nature. Sometimes it’s rational. Sometimes it’s irrational. Sometimes it’s primal. Sometimes it’s neurotic. But in courtship, a frenzy occurs. Hardy tosses in human nature, psychology, class hierarchies, culture, innocence, tragedy, morals, disposition, faith, and more. These are all currents humans swim in and have swum in since man began walking.

Someone reading The Madding Crowd at age twenty will likely see it a bore in some places. Their current season of life may have them think, “A really hot girl made all the boys go crazy, then this one guy simped for her, another went insane because he was simping, and the playboy turned out to be a douche.” A cynical reading. But that's someone who has not yet waded far into the seasons of life. Life adds perspective. And that perspective makes Hardy’s story a classic.

With perspective, we see how Bathsheba’s immaturity creates turmoil and that turmoil battles against her maturity. She is the agent of her consequences. This she recognizes, which reveals her capacity. She recognizes her immaturity but puts herself into binds when wanting to eliminate it. She loves the attention. Yet she struggles to close a door that needs closing — her self-indulgence of the effect she wields over men. And when she ends up marrying Troy, she sees his facade, and sees her foolishness for falling for it, but then works to make it work. But she does it in a youthful manner, she overlooks her intuitions and what she herself brings to the table and ends up hoping and chasing the early playfulness Troy displayed. Simultaneously, we see her recognizing him for who he is. She recognizes the gravity of vowing to marry someone. Again, this shows the spectrum of human nature. As that occurs and she gains perspective, she comes to recognize how Oak matured into an effective man but knows ruminating over him or fantasizing over “what if” will only further distract her from her situation. It creates a bind and a frenzy that is all too human. That bind, that frenzy, gets heightened when it appears Troy is dead. Troy is not dead. He somewhat fakes a death (he can’t even commit to that) to get out of his marriage. Bathsheba takes precautions and adheres to the norms of the time, that after your husband has passed you need to wait over a year before considering being available again. This makes her real.

Theories and ideologies today attempt to remove the complexity of people.

The manosphere would hyper-focus on Bathsheba’s whimsical nature and proclaim, “All women are like this!” That completely misses nuance. Sure, some women are wholly immature, at any age, many to the point of being undateable. Some in the manosphere may see her erotic scene on the horse as proof that Bathsheba is a woman of easy virtue who gives it up to anyone. But she isn’t. Yes, she’s aware of her erotic presence, she’s self-satisfied with it, which leaves much to the imagination, but she expressed her sensuous nature, to her belief, in private. Yes, she enjoyed the taboo nature of it, being outdoors, but she did it in the context of it believing no one else could see her. She knows her looks, her beauty, provides an advantage, which she indulges in, but she doesn’t throw modesty out the window. This reveals a feminine grace. That grace comes from her morals. Her chastity and modesty are important to her. Also, she values hard work and she works hard. She takes over a nearly defunct farm and manages to do pretty well. She handles ups and downs well. She handles the business side of people well. We see she’s capable of growth and maturity. But Hardy makes her ignore certain insecurities she needs to face. Bathsheba wants a strong, man. But she’s misguided on how to recognize the values and traits of one. Her immaturity surfaces and she picks Troy. Troy would be the perfect pick on paper and a hero to Manosphere men, but he’s weak. He’s ineffective. She intuits something off with Boldwood but sees on paper he looks sterling. She just can’t quite put a thumb on it. In other words, she has depth. She hasn’t arrived to it in spots. And who knows if she will ever arrive at it.

And to bring back chance and consequence, the characters all meet at certain points of their lives. If the story had Bathsheba at 18, at that point, she may have outright hated a feature of herself. And that self-dislike would kill some confidence, she wouldn't be in the stages of self-satisfaction, thus altering certain storylines. Had Hardy developed Oak romantically a just a smidge and his self-assuredness, Bathsheba may have never met the other guys or thrown them interest. The frenzy would still be there, but the storylines would be a little different. Such is life, and such is a beautiful feature of life, even though at times it can be maddening.

Feminist Tract

I must address the other theory, a theory I saw in the Penguin Classic’s introduction. The Penguin version I read featured an introduction and some fairly helpful footnotes. They were written by a Feminist Literature Professor. And her introduction, while at times helpful, made Bathsheba a victim of the patriarchy. That all her behavior, and all her bad behavior, was a result of her being pressured by males. And that Oak watching her sensually trick ride a horse in a field somehow deeply violated Bathsheba. And some of the footnotes slanted Bathsheba as a victim to all of the men. Sure, Troy is a cad. Boldwood is insane and never listens. But Bathsheba is also the agent of her own decisions. She makes bad decisions. A woman’s bad decisions or bad behavior isn’t erased because.. you know… men. Men and women can make shit decisions when they don’t intend to. They can behave poorly. Even when they are young, like Fanny and Bathsheba, and lose their chastity to a deceptive cad like Troy — still, while they may lack deeper perspective before the knocking of boots is about to occur, they still opt to knock boots. This is not to blame them. This is not to say they felt compelled to because of the systemic forces of the patriarchy. Each made their decision to knock boots with him for their reasons, good, bad, irrational, regrettable, self-worth, delusion, primal, impulsive, and all the other reasons. Each of their dispositions and emotional makeup, and the moment, led them to that decision. We can’t quite put a finger on it, but we know how Troy conducted himself, that he’s, in salty words, the weak beta asshole. Troy is to blame. Yet, again, Bathsheba and Fanny made their decisions. And this feminist academic also tried claiming Bathsheba wasn’t taken seriously as a boss and the men grumbled. Well, no shit the men grumbled. One, she’s their boss. It’s inevitable humans will bitch about their boss. Two, she’s a single woman in Victorian England doing what was then considered a man’s role. Of course, that is different. Of course, certain farmhands are going to have some concerns. That isn’t sexist, it’s human nature. Yet as the story goes on, her employees develop trust with her. They enjoy working for her.

So no, Bathsheba isn’t a victim of the patriarchy in this story. The introduction and some of the footnotes drove me up a wall. Many feminist and manosphere theories completely ignore human nature.

And turning over to the men.

With Oak, we see a man coming into his own. Yes, he’s a hurt puppy at times. But he evolves. He raises his station. In the beginning, he hangs out in the pub, but he matures past this. He’s not a snob, but he’s focused on other things. Other characters stay stuck in the pub life, never evolving. Oak evolves. His frenzy at first is Bathsheba. And it comes from his hopeless romantic idealization and from him being struck for the first time, encountering a distinct beauty like Bathsheba. It takes up real estate in his mind, yet he keeps his doing his thing. He keeps working hard. He keeps evolving.

We also see his early veneer of confidence turn into actual confidence. Oak is manly. He’s honest. He’s a late bloomer to some things, which is natural, and he’s a man of faith, resolve, passion, and morals. He contrasts Troy and Boldwood. He contrasts their character, and their weaknesses.

To finish this section, Madding is a story of tragedy. It’s ending, I’m still deciding whether it’s happy, good, bittersweet, or just is, and life goes on. It’s also a courtship story. I see youthful impulses, innocence, immaturity, insanity, idealization, and emotion all clashing together. We see tragedy, beauty, and consequences. We see individuals act in familiar ways, yet the actions reveal their complexity.

Concluding Musings; Personal Conversation

Literature has a habit of revealing truths of the world. Hardy depicts human nature in the context of courtship, attraction, decisions, consequences, morals, and class. As I read I couldn’t help but remember my youthful romance days. I was a hopeless romantic as a teenager. I can relate to Oak. I felt those male idealizations. I remember doing them myself. Hardy added life to the songs I listened to repeatedly in my dorm room in high school when I had a crush on a girl. I’d listen to Photograph by Def Leppard, and Wait by White Lion. I remember the first time I laid eyes on a distinct beauty in person, and was able to put it into context. I remember the frenzy of it all. And Hardy made me appreciate my change of seasons. I mentioned Bob Seger and his iconic Night Moves. That song holds a special place for me. At the risk of oversharing, my changing of season, or you could say, growth out of innocence (yes, men also have their innocence), adhered almost to the letter of that song.

When I read of Oak and his hopeless romanticism coming to terms with Bathsheba, and how it played out, I came to better understand the timeless meanings painted into the lyrics of Night Moves. The mysteries without any clues certainly imply the physical awkwardness occurring in the backseat frenzy of that ’60 Chevy, but Hardy showed me it means so much more. That line reveals the nature of young men and women, brand new to courtship, love, and intimacy. While they’re "adults", they’re still new to it all. Puppy love can still linger. You think at that time in your life that you are deeply in love with that person. But as you grow, and maybe get married only a few years later (likely to someone else, but even if it is the same person, a lot more maturity has happened), you mature and see the colors of that time better. You come to develop personal depth and perspective. The veneer of confidence evolves into confidence, And with perspective, you come to understand that period of youthful frenzy a bit better.

And when Seger sings awakening last night to the sound of thunder to reminisce the autumn closing in line — it resembles the human change of seasons. Hardy likes to use the seasons in Madding Crowd. He uses the ample fields of spring to describe Bathsheba. We see Oak thinking of the growing with the seasons of his own life. Seger’s line autumn closing in means the final decades of life are approaching. I’m 43. I’m still young. But I know a lot more about life now than I did at 19. I’ve gained perspective. When Bob Seger wakes up at night, he remembers the girl, but he’s not pining after her. Rather, he’s sentimental about that time in his life, that frenzy, that playful intimate mischievousness. And Seger has since gained perspective. Those young days tastes sweet to him as the season of the later years of his life approach. I relate to that. At 43, the years fly by as do the days. When at 19, time moved slowly. And that excitement and frenzy during courtship of those years, the idealizations, I thought I had to know way more of women, I thought I had to be Superman to attract them — aka awkward teenage blues. I had the veneer of confidence, but I lacked true confidence. Hardy surfaced that time of my life. That time of yearning to be a man, that yearning to conquer the world, yet still stumbling with the growing pains of fanciful romance. Hardy gave me an appreciation for my disposition. I feel blessed that I connect to the protagonist in Seger’s song. Blessed because I know some guys and gals never grow up. They stay stuck. Some guys stay in conquest. Some guys want a man cave and sophomorically obsess over bacon and boobs. Some guys join the red pill and hate women, hate the colors of life, and ultimately hate themselves, and feel it necessary to project their psycho-sexual fantasies and cynical theories onto the world. And the same goes for women. Strong cultural currents tell them to hate men. Other currents make them view men or a relationship solely for the purpose of self-actualization. Others may only view their gifts negatively, instead of coming into their own with them like Bathsheba. Whereas others may take Bathsheba’s shallowness and go too far with it, perpetuating cycles of frenzy. Yet some will take the capacity of Bathsheba, and evolve into those strengths.

And the modern world has drastically altered dating. We’ve nearly vanquished serendipity. Teens are checking out of dating. But despite those changes, and regardless how much they portend, our nature has not changed. That frenzy still exists. The spectrum of Oak and of Bathsheba and the rest will outlive us. The frenzy overwhelming a man when he sees a Bathsheba happens every day, as does the frenzy overwhelming a woman when she sees a man revel in his effectiveness. This will go on. That Hardy captures, and that is what makes The Madding Crowd special.

Hey we felt the lightning
And waited on the thunder
Waited on the thunder
I woke last night to the sound of thunder
How far off I sat and wondered
Started humming a song from 1962
Ain’t funny how the night moves
When you just don’t seem to have as much to lose
Strange how the night moves
With autumn closin’ in

- Bob Seger

But some individuals, and sometimes large swaths of individuals, don’t look to what forms their worldview, what shapes it, the principles of their worldview. Instead, most want their worldview to be pacified.

I’m a Conservative. I believe Conservatism to be true. I’m aware that many on my spectrum like eating our red meat. We want to read more about how the world is going to hell, and the “libtards” or the “RINOs” are leading us to it. Yes, I believe the Progressive Enlightenment is five fire alarm of barbarism. I find Progressive Enlightenment racist, tribalist, spiteful, …

Read more

Progressivism in the transatlantic world arose from the ashes of the Puritan experiment. Throughout its history, progressive thought adhered to a theory of social organization that placed the perfection of the human condition above more quotidian affairs. It was as much a moral crusade as a political program. The pursuit of purity has found a home in many American political coalitions over the centuries because it is deeply ingrained. We are all heirs to that tradition -- aspiring social reformers more so than most.

This thesis (in bold) points to an American core truth I’ve not yet come across in my American decline series. That core truth: American culture was largely founded and directed by the Puritans. While America became a melting pot, the Puritans laid out early American values.

Rothman lays out the progressive worldview in the first half, that belief of man and society can be perfected. Then he ties it into the Puritan current that influences America. A current influencing diff…

Read more

This FTP is on The Dying Citizen by Victor Davis Hanson. My previous read was The Decadent Society by Ross Douthat.

Douthat I like, I respect but he began annoying me. So I skipped sections and looked for the meat of his argument in the last third or so. What annoyed me, was his constant work to pacify his New York Times readers. He came across as the house conservative for NYT readers. He just fed their belief that their worldview is correct, and that most Conservatives are racist dregs. It was unfortunate, he made great arguments and observations, then he quickly bent the knee to the worldview of urban elite liberals.

From Douthat:

In other words, Trump-era populism draws a certain kind of energy from moving back and forth across the safety/danger line, but when pressed, it prefers to appeal to the system as a client demanding services, or as a subject demanding its righ…

Read more

How can the new sophisticated urban dweller, or the college educated, or the renter with a big-screen television and smartphone possibly be compared to what we have called precitizens — mere residents before the rise of Western citizenship — given their distaste for the large families of the traditional peasant and their supposed cosmopolitanism so at odds with agrarian parochialism.

One, child, or indeed childlessness altogether, ostensibly expanded the career opportunities of women and ensured more disposable family income for leisure, travel, and recreation.

Read more

Victor Davis Hanson (VDH) is an esteemed classicist and historian. He’s a Hoover Institution Fellow. Other fellows include Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Niall Ferguson, and Russ Roberts. I won’t extrapolate much, but in sum, the Hoover Institution is home to leading Conservative intellectuals. And it’s a beacon in how it stands out. Thomas Sowell being a fellow, and him being proud of that, is enough of a stamp of approval.

Why am I saying all this?

Victor Davis Hanson’s conviction here, his thesis, is arrived at versus just spouting. And it lays out an important premise for his book.

Citizenship, after all, is not an entitlement; it requires work. Yet too many citizens of republics, ancient and modern, come to believe they deserve rights without assuming the responsibilities — and they don’t worry how or why or from whom they inherited their privileges.

That’s succinct. That’s p…

Read more