Hawthorne

Forum

i cant believe nobody has commented on him yet. "the scarlet letter" offers many readings from deconstruction to psychoanalysis. the novel is, as always, better than the movie, but i guess most people associate it with Demi Moore's performance

>>By papatya   (Monday, 1 Dec 2003 09:50)



The Scarlet Letter was riveting and thought-provoking. It is also one of the best novels I've read in a long time.

>>By Farie Child   (Tuesday, 2 Dec 2003 00:36)



I enjoyed reading this novel because of all the symbolism present but I did find it tedious at times.

>>By T_Sweety   (Tuesday, 2 Dec 2003 04:22)



for me pearl is the most interesting and thought provoking character in the novel

>>By papatya   (Tuesday, 2 Dec 2003 12:12)



I haven't read The Scarlet Letter, but really enjoyed Young Goodman Brown and The Birthmark. I think that Hawthorne finds people's judgement of others scary because of his family history and the fact that his forebearers were involved in the persecution of the Quakers and later in the Salem Witch hunts. What do you guys think?

>>By ENGL Student   (Monday, 15 Mar 2004 02:00)



Hawthorne certainly possessed ambivalent feelings about his Grandfather (Uncle?) who presided over many of the notorious Salem trials. However, I believe Hawthorne, like all memorable authors, manages to transcend his own history, although he certainly draws from it, in his portrayal of society and its treatment of those deemed outsiders. What's interesting about the Scarlet Letter is its refusal to characterize any person or institution as evil. Although the Puritan leaders are undoubtedly harsh in their methods of punishment, Hawthorne is careful to portray them as logical outcomes of historical occurrence and not as mindlessly malevolent malefactors. God bless alliteration.

Peace

>>By granther   (Monday, 15 Mar 2004 08:23)



Granther's insight on Hawthorne is at best a result of his Berkley education. Hawthorne does show the face of 'sin' throughout his stories. He certainly is not unwilling to term, people or institutions as evil. If anything he sees the fallen nature of the puritan 'institution'. To him this fallen nature has an aspect of evil to it. Of course in life as in good literature everything is not purely evil. There are nuances of truth even in the most corrupt thing.
The mystery that Hawthorne grapples with is the truth in Hester Pryne, as well as her sin. He doesn't question that what she and the rev. did was 'sin'. Rather he looks at her natural goodness and ponders how both can exist at the same time. Yet the same is true for the rev. but to a lesser degree.
Maybe you should read the 'Marble Fawn'. And ponder a bit on how Hawthorne struggled, and almost became a Catholic - as his daughter did. And woe to Berkley for churning out such a pscho-simplistic reading of literature and man. They would do better not to take sin and evil out of the equation. No doubt they are teaching you that he had a homo-sexual experience while having to sleep in the same bed as his uncle. They are trying to conform every writer to their understanding of history and sexuality - look at the man! Look at his time! Look at his faith! Don't look at yourself to understand him, understand him for who he is.

>>By pass   (Sunday, 21 Mar 2004 17:11)



Just read the one about the birthmark shaped as a tiny hand. I think it's called Birthmark. I liked it a lot as I do most of NH. Paul Auster's second to last book, The Book of Illusion refers to NH quite directly. Great writer, Hawthorne. Makes you think that you don't have to pen a 100 volumes to be good or respected. Phew. Load of my back... :)

>>By OnceAgain   (Sunday, 21 Mar 2004 20:35)



"Granther's insight on Hawthorne is at best a result of his Berkley education..." For a grown woman that's a pretty childish way to respond to an interpretation. Perhaps your opinion is at best a result of your religious beliefs and maternal instincts, but that's no business of mine.

I agree with your contention that Hawthorne dubbed insitutions as "fallen." However, I stand by my assertion that never does he never instills any characters as "evil." Perhaps my definition of this term would be helpful in clarifying what we debate, or finding out if we even are debating the same idea. To me, evil is a force whose malignance cannot be justified, whose cruelty cannot be redeemed, and whose appearance in the world is solely a negative one. Now, to describe some tendency or trait as evil is another matter, this is specifying precisely what is malicious and likely explaining how.

As you said, Hawthorne certainly grapples with sin in its rawest most honest form. However, I would challenge you to find me a character who emobides the soulless evil you claim he instills in some of his characters or institutions. The Scarlet Letter goes out of its way to show the importance of Puritan society in maintaining stability and order in the moral and phsyical wilderness of a fledgling society. The result of absconding from the sphere of society through sin is manifested in Pearl, who is rebellious and without sympathy for her peers. Even what's his name, Hester's former husband, (it's been a while since I read this book), does not pop into the book like a hellspawn. We are shown what negative propensity overtakes him and ruins him, but we still are not made to recognize him as evil incarnate.

Hope this went some distance in resolving the point.

>>By granther   (Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004 19:45)



Granther, I would have to agree with Pass and recomend that you pick up the Scarlet Letter again. if you reread the book you may see that Hesters is shaped by the sin she committed, and by Boston's reaction to her sin. Hester is damned by all of boston to wear the A over her heart and at one point even considers fratricide instead of raising pearl as an illegitamate child. I will say that Boston sins in their punishment of Hester and even objectifies her, she is placed on scaffold, made a spectacle of, labeled for life as an adultress; she is no longer a human being but an object of sin, and as a result trades a loss of privacy (on the scaffold and in the eye of boston) for a damnation of isolation (in the literal sense). Thus, I agree with Pass, when he says that "Hawthorne does show the face of 'sin' throughout his stories. He certainly is not unwilling to term, people or institutions as evil." and Hawthorne is portraying Boston not as entirely evil, but not entirley free of sin either.

Furthermore, Granther I would encourage you to examine dimmesdale and chillingworths encounters. First I will say of your definition of evil is short and highly opinionated. it is obvious Granther that yours, and Pass's opinion of evil differ significantly, so I will use mine and what I assume Pass was referrring to. Evil: morally bad, wrong, sinful. I won't include justification or redemption because those words have implications of their own. Upon re-examining the text with my definintion of evil you will see that chillingworth objectifies Dimmesdale more so than Boston does to Hester. Chillingworth sees Dimmesdale as a scientific experiment, not as a human being. He plunders and pillages maliciously Dimmesdales soul by reining control over his emotions and perhaps his physical ails. Moreover when Dimmesdale discovers Chilllingsworth is Hester husband he comments, "he violated the sanctity of the human heart." He violated his soul. If you do not consider this to be evil, I hope that your on my next jury. But any ways this is all the opinion of a state student from California no less, so you may want to disregard everything I just said. by the way if you want quotes email me I'll give them to ya', please be specific which ones you want. rian.jeong@sbcglobal.net

>>By litnerd   (Tuesday, 13 Apr 2004 10:36)



litnerd, your first paragraph seems to argue two different points. You explore the way Hester's sin shapes her existence in Boston, namely, through isolation, humiliation etc. You then state, "She is no longer a human being but an object of sin, and as a result trades a loss of privacy (on the scaffold and in the eye of boston) for a damnation of isolation (in the literal sense)." But this statement is only true in regard to societies view of Hester. The narrator never maligns her explicitly, and instead goes to great lengths to humanize her through romantic descriptions of her torment and her charity to the village. Following this assertion, you agree with Pass about Hawthorne's labeling of people and instutitions as evil. At this point this become unclear. Are you arguing that Hawthorne deems Hester evil, or Boston? If Hester, then I refer you to my above statement that she is evil only in the eyes of Boston, although she certainly is sinful in from the narrator's point of view as well. Now if you meant Boston was evil, then your paragraph does not explore the why or how of this assertion at all.

As to your definition of evil, "Morally bad, wrong, sinful." It seems to me that Hester is certainly not "morally bad" except for her adultery. Other than that she is actually quite virtuous and devoted to altruistic acts. As for "wrong," that is so vague it is almost indefinable. Again Hester is certainly "wrong" in her adultery, but in other ways she is certainly "right." And finally, as for "sinful," a lot of people in the book are sinful, but their sin is not all of that constitutes them. The only person you could reasonably argue is entirely sinful is chillingworth, but I would disagree with that contention as well. The reason I would do so is because Chillingworth, for all his maliciousness, is reciprocates an injustice done against him. Now this certainly doesn't exculpate him completely, but it goes a long way in creating sympathy for him. After all, he was cuckolded by a Priest, that is no minor misdeed. Thus, while he certainly acts fiendishly, he is simultaneously an agent of punishment against Dimmesdale who, you certainly would agree, is sinful as well.

To conclude, I stand by my original comment that Hawthorne is careful not to dub any person or institution as wholly evil, even if almost all characters contain some sort of moral aberrance within them.

>>By granther   (Monday, 19 Apr 2004 00:54)



Granther, thank you for your response. I agree with your statement that Hawthorne is careful not to dub hester, or dimmesdale, as entirely evil and perhaps should have mentioned that above. However, I still feel that Chillingworth's revenge far exceeds the crime commited against him; I will not bother to argue over a definition of evil, because we can write paragraph upon paragraph just on that. But, the transformation that occurs in Chillingworth and the intrest he takes in ruining the priest is very malicious. Furthermore, Dimmesdale already knows that he has sinned in the eyes of his religion; thus leaving him in constant fear of the punishment he will face at the hand of his god. I am arguing that Chillingworth goes beyond just simple atonement, he is out to ruin Dimmesdale, to purge him of all that is sacred. So I ask you, do you think that the crime committed against Chillingworth was greater than the punishment he carried out on dimmesdale? I think the punishment much worse yet, I agree with your statement that the priest is sinful as well, and I find it interesting you mentioning that he [chillingworth] "is simutaneously an agent of punishment against Dimmesdale." this is something which I have not considered, but I must ask, are you saying that Chillingworth is acting as an agent from god to punish Dimmesdale? or maybe you could clarify what you mean. This statement just seems presumptious with out further exploration into the Puritan religion. Which I'll be honest and say that I know very little about it, so if you can provide me with further insight, please do. Therefore, I see your argument in stating that chillingworth is not completly "evil" [using the term loosley], but disagree. Sympathy in a character is not justification for a crime commited. A man is still a murderer if he kills the person whom his wife is sleeping with, even by our much less rigid standards of todays society.

>>By litnerd   (Monday, 19 Apr 2004 10:01)



A man is definitely still a murderer if he kills the person whom his wife is sleeping with? But is he not a more sympathetic murderer? Soldiers are sanctioned by their government to kill as many "enemies" as possible with utter immunity, would you designate them murderers.

Now don't get me wrong, there's no question Chillingworth is a monstrous creature obsessed with inflicting harm. I mean, his name alone is enough to convey that fact. However, you will recall Chillingworth is not this malefactors real name, and he only changed it after Hester's sin was perpetrated. Furthermore, before the sin, "Old Roger Chillingworth, throughout life, had been calm in temperament, kindly, though not of warm affections." Hawthorne purposely presents us with this personal history of Chillingworth, which does the opposite of demonize him, and instead highlights the power of sin to transform a once good man. Thus, even Chillingworth meets the guidelines of my original statement, "What is interesting about the Scarlet Letter is its refusal to characterize any person or institution as evil." No question, Chillingworth is horribly altered by his desire for vengeance, but I still do not consider his character an evil one.

Another random quotes to lend support to my assertion that Hawthorne does not strictly delineate sin and virtue, or evil and good.
Dimmesdale, when writing his final sermon, in a moment of utter torment due to his sin, becomes inspired with his most powerful oratory, "He fancied himself inspired; and only wondered that Heaven should see fit to transmit the grand and solemn music of its oracles through so foul an organ--pipe as he." This quote draws a cause-effect relationship between sin and inspiration.

Anyways, it's late and I gotta crash.

>>By granther   (Monday, 19 Apr 2004 10:32)



Bravo litnerd, and I too am of California origin. I agree with your assesment of sin and evil. But must diverge greatly from granther's original definition. It is important to understand the sentiment of the puritain religion to understand how Hawthorne has arrived at his own, greatly diverging understanding of evil. You see, like your definition Hawthorne did not believe of sin (evil) as this all encompasing thing. Granther's definition would actually have fit a puritan well. No, He believed that linked, inextricable to the understanding of sin is that we each (as you see in every character) have a part in spinning its web and that at cathartic moments can walk away from it, see it for what it is. This notion would have been revolutionary at the time. Just as Hawthorne the man tried to walk away from his puritan roots you see the characters in his stories (short stories included) hesitate at their actions. The idea that granther brings up about evil is very confused because he cannot seem to accept that the action and the person can be seperated. If these were Disney characters I am sure they would be presented as pure evil. But this is good literature the truth is as is life - no one is truly pure evil. But through fear (Dimmesdale) and hatred (Chillingsworth) people do evil things. And if they embrace those, one after the other. If they embrace the theory of it (you will see the delima of Chillingsworth in stories like the birth mark...) then evil and death (spiritual and well as physical) are the outcome. The last comment of Granther about the organ pipe is actually a very revolutionary comment by Hawthorne. You see purity could only be obtained by the Puritan through never coming into contact with sin or evil. That is why Hester had to be cast out, she would infect them all if they did not. The same with Chillingsworth. Indeed even though his action we saw as deplora ble it was a must according to the puritan maxim. That was his duty. Though he dressed up his hatred with duty and that was a sin that Hawthorne often saw in the puritan elite. Actually Dimmesdale's declaration that God works wonders even through the sinful was an understanding of the the Divine that the Puritans had condemned the Catholic church for and declared her the whore of babel because indeed many in her rank were sinful.

I think it is wonderful that you are having a fast clipped debate! Indeed Granther this is the best of ways to learn. I only wanted to challenge you with the Berkely comment. But do be more careful with your retorts. Especially when it deals with womanhood and motherhood. The world is changing, women who have children also have great minds. And you never know who you are talking to ;)

>>By pass   (Wednesday, 21 Apr 2004 17:18)



Brovo Pass!

I must admit that I found myself waivering between both points of view. Now with your clarification of Puritan ideals, I am able to take specific points from both debaters and include them with my own thoughts on this subject.

I will not inflict you all with them at this point as they need some sorting out and more thought.

Thank you Granther, Litnerd, and Pass for your interesting and illuminating discussion.

>>By chesshirecat   (Friday, 23 Apr 2004 17:15)



>The idea that granther brings up about evil is very confused because he >cannot seem to accept that the action and the person can be seperated. >If these were Disney characters I am sure they would be presented as >pure evil.

Actually, that's what I've been trying to get across this whole time, my original statement, which was the fuel for our debate was, "What's interesting about the Scarlet Letter is its refusal to characterize any person or institution as evil." According to your own statement, Hawthorne separates the "action" from the "person," and although the action may be evil, the person may remain only influenced by sin, but not an embodiment of sin. So, although all your explanations and commentary regarding Hawthorne's take on evil and sin are extremely interesting and pertinent, they seem to adhere to my primary contention.

>>By granther   (Friday, 23 Apr 2004 21:20)



Yes granther,
but I do disagree that we still are on opposite sides of the point. That is; that through the habit of doing evil's work, through embracing it and turning away habitually from the good, we become its - well - whore. That was the irony in the end you see. Chillingsworth for all his 'purity' had the seed of anger, hate, vengence in him. He WILLINGLY became the DOER of evil. And so in the end the dirty vessal of dimmsdale, was more pure than the 'puritan' vessal of chillingsworth. Once someone has made that choice to embrace evil, unless he turn away at some future point, in that moment of action in that decision upon decision he is evil. Yet, Evil, as a spiritual concept is something very different from evil. Just as Purity ( or necessary Goodness) as a spiritual concept is very different from being pure. Being pure is an action chosen in time, each moment at a time - again the irony was that Heaster was more pure in the subsequent moments of her life after her moment of sin that any one else in the novel. None of us can be truly Evil, nor truly Pure through our wills alone. This notion is very, very different than the Puritan understanding of good and evil.

>>By pass   (Sunday, 2 May 2004 06:25)



The discussion board is currently closed.