Question

from Return of the Native

The scene was strangely homogeneous, in that the vale, the upland, the barrow, and the figure above it amounted only to unity. Looking at
this or that member of the group was not observing a complete thing, but a fraction of a thing.
The form was so much like an organic part of the entire motionless structure that to see it move would have impressed the mind as a
strange phenomenon. Immobility being the chief characteristic of that whole which the person formed portion of, the discontinuance of immobility
in any quarter suggested confusion.
Yet that is what happened. The figure perceptibly gave up its fixity, shifted a step or two, and turned round. As if alarmed, it descended on
the right side of the barrow, with the glide of a water-drop down a bud, and then vanished. The movement had been sufficient to show more clearly
the characteristics of the figure, and that it was a woman's.
(from Return of the Native by Thomas Hardy)
When Sasha first read the passage, she thought fixity meant "identity."
Was Sasha correct?
1. Yes, because any change or movement within the scene creates confusion that further obscures the identity of the figure.
2. Yes, because as the defining features of the figure are momentarily revealed, observers can clearly determine her true identity.
3. No, because the figure becomes frightened, turns around, and abruptly disappears, suggesting that the word means "mystery."
4. No, because the figure remains inseparable from the structure as a whole until she moves, implying that the word means
"motionlessness."

Answer 1

[AI-generated answer — Bot GPT 3.5]

4. No, because the figure remains inseparable from the structure as a whole until she moves, implying that the word means "motionlessness."