Hester's Sympathetic Knowledge

In class we discussed how Hawthorne's depiction of Puritan society is critical. He exposes the hypocrisy of both men and women, and presents Hester as morally superior in many respects.

Perhaps the most prominent criticism of Puritan society that Hawthorne presents is hypocrisy. In a discussion on Hester's experience in bearing the Scarlet Letter near the end of Chapter V, Hawthorne writes:

"She shuddered to believe, yet could not help believing, that it gave her a sympathetic knowledge of the hidden sin in other hearts. She was terror-stricken by the revelations that were thus made. What were they? Could they be other than the insidious whispers of the bad angel, who would fain have persuaded the struggling woman, as yet only half his victim, that the outward guise of purity was but a lie, and that, if truth were everywhere to be shown, a scarlet letter would blaze forth on many a bosom besides Hester Prynne's?"

He goes on to describe how Hester would detect sympathetic feelings and glances from ministers, young maidens, and elder saintly woman - as if they shared in her experience. And He concludes with:

"Be it accepted as a proof that all was not corrupt in this poor victim of her own frailty, and man's hard law, that Hester Prynne yet struggled to believe that no fellow mortal was guilty like herself."

In this way, Hawthorne uses Hester to expose the guilt of the entire Puritan society. It is almost as if Hester's one outward sin is a foil that reveals the widespread inward sin of the townspeople.

The Excitement of Melville's Real Life in Bartleby?

After our class today where we briefly discussed Melville's life and then Bartleby, The Scrivener I started to consider why Melville would write a story like this and what purpose it could serve. We began to discuss this in the end of class, but not until after class did I realize that the story completely contradicts the facts of Melville's life. Melville was adventurous and wasn't even schooled past the age of 12, which means he didn't necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of any institutional ruling. He struggled with social status and wealth, and worked on whaling and fishing ships throughout his life. The adventure in Melville's life brought me to question why he would care to write a mysterious story about the very average and monotonous life of a lawyer and his scrivener. 

Bartleby is strange, for sure, but nothing about Bartleby, or the narrator's life for that matter, is very exciting. According to Onno today, Melville had at one point lived on a desert island where a fear of cannibalism was a better option than spending time with the captain of his ship, and he chose to write about two men working in an office on Wall Street?! It puzzled me for a while as to why he would choose this as a subject matter, and why Bartleby could have any connection to Melville's life and/or experiences. I'm not saying that an author has to write about their experiences necessarily, but Onno said today that Melville wasn't even really a believer in college, so how could he fixate in such detail on a strict work environment for such average working men in New York City? 

This brought me to the concept that maybe Bartleby is a symbol of adventure and takes action to be adventurous with his famous line, "I'd prefer not" (1499). It's possible that Bartleby's rebellion represents that which Melville could be promoting which is to rebel against this sense of entrapment in an establishment like this law firm on Wall Street. It may seem like a stretch, but The fact that Bartleby stands out as worthy having a story written about him speaks to how otherwise boring the narrator's life must be when it comes to his job. Essentially, my point is, maybe the story's point isn't necessarily to question humanity or the to discuss free will, but maybe it's about exploring excitement and adventure even in the smallest ways possible in your own life. I realize that Melville wrote other stories that were inspired by his life experiences and adventures, and I don't know his specific relationship with offices on Wall Street, but the setting is without a doubt quite average. It's possible that Melville set this story in such an average and unexciting place in order to portray the ways in which one can find adventure (possibly tied in with free will) even in the dullest setting. This also isn't to say there wasn't something confusing and strange about Bartleby, but I just mean to explore why Melville decided to write about such a simple setting if his life experience could have added much more action to this story. 

The Queen Still Rules

America has quite a complicated history with Britain, especially when we consider the first century after we gained independence. For decades, they were sworn enemies; the War of 1812 probably helped reinforce this opinion. Yet the relationship was vastly improving, or at the very least, the people were moving beyond the disagreements. (To relate to Douglas, he took a tour of England and the English did gather enough money to purchase his freedom.)

A line from Melville’s “Paradise for Bachelors and Tartarus of Maids” reveals an interesting take of the relationship between the two nationalities. The narrator of the chapter states, “[choosing furniture] is a thing which every sensible American should learn from every sensible Englishman” (Melville p1513). I interpret this line rather pessimistically: American upper class still had an element of crassness that their English counterparts lacked. So therefore, the English models must have been better.

Isn’t that a great standard? To allow the social structure to be dictated and compared to by the former rulers and what many would argue to be the oppressors of America? To be fair, Britain was the basis for a lot of society in general in America. When the United States broke away, the main changes were the government and economic rules that the people had to follow. Society itself remained relatively unchanged. (For a model of what a proper revolution does to society, look at the French Revolution. (This is in reference to Crane Brinton’s The Anatomy of Revolution, where he lists the seven stages most revolutions fit.))

The point is that the American Renaissance wasn’t recognized as a Renaissance at the time possibly because Americans didn’t recognize their culture as “culture.” Most of the references that we encounter at this point of the semester are European. There was only the beginning of American literary history, and as such there wasn’t much to reference. Most American references are of Emerson, who was noted as a great writer while he was still alive.

Of course, the American identity still developed. Melville actually created one of the “American novels,” although it took until the British got a hand on Moby Dick for anyone to realize it.

(It’s also possible that Melville meant this line as ironically as possible. If so, good for him for recognizing the validity of American’s upper class!)

Completely Confused by Bartleby

This is the first time I've read Bartleby and I don't think a character and his intentions have ever been so unclear to me. I could list off a hundred questions I have about him. After I learned a little about Melville's life, I found out that him and Hawthorne had been friends and influenced each other's work. I found this really ironic since Hawthorne handed the readers his symbols and clearly displayed his themes, but in Bartleby, we were left with very little information about the protagonist.

In the first paragraph the narrator says he can't write about Bartleby's complete life, establishing his mysteriousness. This mystery was evident throughout the whole writing and left me wondering what the point was. At first it seemed like Bartleby may be taking some sort of stand in his workplace, expressing his freedom, but his boss doesn't get mad at him and expresses the same sort of sympathy I began to feel towards Bartleby. The narrator feels a connection with him. He realizes they are both just men- "For both I and Bartleby were sons of Adam".

The last line "Ah Bartleby! Ah Humanity" left me wondering if the whole point isn't in Bartleby but in the bigger picture, in humanity as a whole. People are confusing, as the narrator clearly expressed and even though he put up with Bartleby for so long, when he finally got him arrested, we see it may have led to his death in prison. It got me wondering if maybe Melville is trying to understand humanity. When should we be sympathetic? When should we get angry and punish someone who is continuously breaking the rules? But then again, I'm confused by this character and what he may represent, so I am sure he embodies much more than what I could put together 

The Scarlet Letter and Pathetic Fallacy

In The Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne plays with the stylistic element of pathetic fallacy in really interesting ways. As a partial Transcendentalist and self-proclaimed Romanticist, his use of this element fits cohesively with other aspects of his style and philosophy. He depicts the natural world almost as a mirror of his characters' emotions, but in a refreshing and interesting way. He doesn't just imbue the natural world with characters' emotions arbitrarily; he does it in a way that comments on the subjectivity of the human experience.

The forest scene, in chapters 15-19, overflows with pathetic fallacy. As if to mirror Hester's guilt and somber attitude, the narrator describes a stream that "kept up a babble, kind, quiet, soothing, but melancholy, like the voice of a young child that was spending its infancy without playfulness" (p. 552). Not only is this line absolutely beautiful, but it reveals Hawthorne's stylistic tendencies and sets up an important symbol for the following chapters. By the end of chapter 19, after Hester convinces Dimmesdale to runaway with her and Pearl, "the melancholy brook" then adds this tale to "the mystery with which its little heart was already overburdened" (p. 567). Though not describing the brook, chapter 18 also depicts nature through pathetic fallacy: "Such was the sympathy of Nature--that wild, heathen Nature of the forest, never subjugated by human law, nor illumined by higher truth--with the bliss of these two spirits! Love... must always create sunshine... it overflows to the outward world" (p.  561). In this scene, Hawthorne imbues nature with the characters' emotions in a very Romantic and Transcendentalist way.

But Hawthorne's use of Pathetic Fallacy is more than just a means to an end (the end being evoking the emotions of his characters). He comments on its significance as a literary technique and as a way to capture the subjective aspects of human experience; it doesn't matter if nature actually, realistically mirrors characters' emotions. It does if they interpret it to. At the end of the previous passage in Chapter 18, the narrator states: "had the forest still kept its gloom, it would have been bright in Hester's eyes, and bright in Dimmesdale's" (p. 561). In Chapter 13, when the meteor appears above Boston, Hawthorne again comments on the aesthetic and philosophical significance of pathetic fallacy when he describes Dimmesdale's reaction: "we impute it, therefore, solely to the disease in his own eye and heart, that the minister, looking upward to the zenith, beheld there the appearance of an immense letter,--the letter A,-- marked out in lines of dull red" (p. 536). In this passage, Hawthorne explains how regardless of the actual scientific or objective phenomenon that occurred, Dimmesdale interpreted it as a representation of his guilt. In this way Hawthorne validates pathetic fallacy as an accurate way to capture the complexities and subjectivity of the human experience.

Truth in The Scarlet Letter

Prior to providing its "where are they now?" epilogue, the narrator in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter offers some reflections on what one should purportedly take away from the novel. The most blunt articulation comes as a response to minister Dimmesdale's pain, the narrator advising his reader to "Be true," and to "show freely to the world, if not your worst, yet some trait whereby the worst may be inferred" (591). This assertion, with its neat morality, does not quite mesh with the some of the novel's morally ambiguous moments, nor does it sit quietly with the narrator's methods of constructing Hester Prynne's story.

The most obvious example of this moral ambiguity comes in the form of Hester's transfiguration of her ignominy into a source of, at the very least, outward pride, as well as using her position to increase  her philanthropic work, not to mention her needlework. Some might point out that we cannot be sure that Hester would not have gone through these positive changes had she avoided her mortal sin, but I would elect to take up the view that Hester's transformation can suggest that out of bad can come good.

One need only look to Pearl for confirmation of this idea. Though frequently described as elfish or even as the daughter of the Black Man, Pearl's most notable characteristic is her precocious intelligence. This intelligence extends into almost supernatural territory for much of the novel, Pearl seemingly possessing the ability to see to the heart of matters she should not understand. Though the puritan citizens suggest that this ability is a sign of evil or darkness, this merely suggests that they can only attribute things they are unused to to iniquitous means. If anything, this dimness suggests a stifling code that, despite its most pious efforts, does not achieve morality but a false construction of it.

Similarly, the narrator's declaration of truth to be the goal of his story is at odds with his disclaimer in "The Custom House" stating that the story that follows is highly embellished. This points out the fact that the narrator is trying to reach some sort of truth through the careful unfolding of various untruths. Though obviously a common method, the very use of it contradicts the narrator's pleas for the truth.

The Community's Role in The Scarlet Letter

One topic we have touched briefly upon in class is the role of the village community in The Scarlet Letter. While we mentioned that the villagers--in theory--have no real reason to involve themselves in Hester and Dimmesdale’s private affair, they serve a larger purpose by assigning the letter A’s symbolic meaning and signifying its adaptability. In the beginning of the novel, the audience observing Hester’s public shaming ceremony reinforces the letter A’s symbolic meaning as a physical manifestation of her adulterous actions and enduring shame. The community members are passive witnesses of Hester’s public humiliation, but their active ridicule and interpretation of the A she wears assign the scarlet letter meaning. Hawthorne highlights the villagers’ role in confirming the letter’s symbolic meaning through his description, “when strangers looked curiously at the scarlet letter,--and none ever failed to do so,--they branded [the letter] afresh into Hester’s soul,” and consequently, “Hester Prynne had always this dreadful agony in feeling a human eye upon the token” (498). The physical letter provokes an emotional effect on Hester, but this effect is only made possible by the villagers’ active gaze on her letter of shame.

Throughout the novel, the villagers reinterpret the letter’s meaning and therefore change their attitude toward Hester and her adulterous act. Recognizing Hester’s positive and charitable contributions to the women in their society, many villagers subsequently refuse “to interpret the scarlet A by its original significance” and instead believe “it mean[s] Able” and signifies her female strength (539). While Hester willingly and consciously commits charitable acts, the villagers are empowered by their ability to change the letter’s significance and reassign its meaning.

            The end of the novel ultimately highlights the villagers’ significance and their ability to confirm the meaning of the external symbolic A. The villagers passively observe the moment in which Dimmesdale reveals his own branded scarlet letter; however, their act of viewership and confirmation of the external symbol Dimmesdale wears enables him to finally liberate himself from his own internal emotional agony and self-destruction. In this way, their act of witness transforms the letter A from an externalization of shame and guilt in the beginning of the novel to one of freedom in the novel’s last few pages.

Tarnished Reputation vs. Inner Toil

In Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale, The Scarlet Letter presents two different means of dealing with the aftermath of sin. Whereas Hester must publicly admit her sin, and bear visible proof of it in the form of the scarlet letter as well as her own daughter, Dimmesdale represses his sin for years. Interestingly, the novel offers no explicit preference toward one method or the other.

On the one hand, Dimmesdale dies at the end of his novel, his repressed sin having eaten away at his body and soul for years. Meanwhile, Hester remains living– but she has to endure a lifetime of shame among her neighbors. Their different paths appear to stem from differing elements of inner conflict and societal reputation.

Dimmesdale, in keeping his secret, finds himself plagued day and night by his own conscience. Indeed, when he finally admits his sin before the villagers, some claim to see a letter A on his chest, which may be “the effect of the ever active tooth of remorse, gnawing from the inmost heart outwardly” (590). However, throughout his silent suffering, the village views him with the highest regard. Hester’s experience is the opposite: she spends her days under the hateful eye of the town, but expresses little sign of any emotional toil within.

If Dimmesdale’s death means anything, it is perhaps that an inner conflict, growing unchecked, will eventually consume its owner– while one like Hester, who receives negativity directed from an outward source, has the possibility of carving out an endurable life for themselves. However, it is still difficult to discern which punishment was “worse”, if one was worse at all. The variety of situations raises significant questions about the power of our own conscience as compared to the power of a society’s perceptions, and how they interact.

This was my second time reading Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener" (after we read it in high school, everyone responded to the teacher by saying "I would prefer not to" to everything). As was the case the first time I read this story, I found the Lawyer's tone towards "his" scriveners off-putting. The passage "I have known very many of them and, if I pleased, could relate [diverse] histories, at which good-natured gentlemen might smile, and sentimental souls might weep" exemplifies what I find discomfiting. The Lawyer sees and treats the scriveners and Ginger Nut like objects to be observed, managed, and to provide amusement. To him, they are just anecdotes to recount for "good-natured gentlemen" who, unlike the scriveners, are the Lawyer's equals. Turkey, Nippers and Ginger Nut do not even have real names, which further contributes to the impression that they are mere oddities and not real people. Bartleby, meanwhile, is dehumanized as he practically becomes a piece of furniture in the office.

While I dislike the Lawyer, I still don't know where I stand on Bartleby. Is his passive resistance profound or is he just a terrible employee?

On Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener”

Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener” is an interesting story, to say the least. I would first like to note the style in which Melville writes this piece. The author tastefully chooses to write his piece using many descriptive details. By doing so, the story seems to be more drawn out, as every person is described in great detail. The setting is also described in detail and events are described colorfully throughout the story. Melville's writing style in this piece is similar to that of Hawthorne and Cooper, but it differs greatly from Poe's style. All that said, I would like to focus on certain characters and their motives throughout this piece. Specifically, the narrator, a lawyer, seems to have no reason to feel allegiance toward Bartleby when Bartleby defies the lawyer's requests. Yet, Bartleby’s curious demeanor and harmless nature drives the narrator to take pity on this character. As a result, even when Bartleby begins to mentally and physically deteriorate, the narrator does what he can to accommodate and take care of this man. Though the lawyer's actions are kind, I found it bizarre that the lawyer would accommodate Bartleby after all the frustration he has caused the lawyer. After all, Bartleby has refused to do various tasks, which has caused stress and anger in the other scriveners. However, the narrator seems to have some emotional attachment to Bartleby, as he seems to pity the man who seemingly has nowhere else to live and nobody else to live off of.

Bartleby is another character whose actions I feel should be heavily scrutinized. Though Ginger Nut, Turkey and Nippers all seem to be quirky characters, all these men do as their boss tells them. For this reason, these men become frustrated when Bartleby respectfully tells the lawyer he would "prefer not to" do the work he is assigned. Bartleby strikes the reader as quite odd and rather off. He not only declines working for the lawyer, but he seems to live out of his office and he eats very little. Though it is explained that Bartleby began as a fantastic scrivener, he seems to lack the obedience skills and desire to work that could make him incredibly successful in this business. It seems as if by the end of the story that Bartleby simply has lost the desire to live. He seems defeated and he suffers mental, emotional and physical defeat. Though the lawyer has Bartleby thrown in jail, he ensures that Bartleby will be fed well and treated correctly. But why does the lawyer care so much about a man who has caused him more bad than good? The answer is unknown, but the ending of the story reveals that Bartleby worked at a Dead Letter office, a downright depressing place to work. Perhaps it was his time at that job that forced Bartleby to lose his desire to live.

The Rules of the Marketplace

The marketplace seems to be a symbol we did not discuss in class that stands for strict adherence to society's rules. The marketplace seems to be the opposite of the forest where the characters could be themselves and not fear punishment (though it could be argued God sees all and therefore punishment may still arise). In Chapter XXII, Hester tells Pearl that "We must not always talk in the market-place of what happens to us in the forest" (581). Beyond her need to conceal the conversation between her and the minister, Hester also seems to be invoking a clear divide between what matters are appropriate for the forest and what is appropriate in the visible, public, Puritan space of the marketplace. Pearl tells her mother than she almost ran to Dimmesdale during the parade to ask for a kiss. Telllingly, Hester responds "kisses are not to be given in the marketplace" (581). Hester doesn't qualify the kisses as specifically ones between the minister and herself or Pearl, but all kisses seem to be banned from the marketplace. The marketplace, the location of the scaffold and adjoining the church, is a sober place without outward emotion where the public eye enforces the rules of the Puritan society. Dimmesdale violates this social construction at the end when he acknowledges Hester and Pearl. When Pearl is finally able to give Dimmesdale his kiss, her tears fall "upon her father's cheek" which is the first time Dimmesdale is explicitly acknowledged as the child's father. Dimmesdale's final actions oppose the accepted rules of the marketplace and allow it, for a moment, to be a place of love and self-expression, which the minister pays for with his life.

Hester as a Religious Figure?

I meant to post this on Thursday and it didn't post! Sorry!

In re-reading The Scarlet Letter for the third time an interesting quotation popped out at me this time around that got me thinking about Hester in a different light. When Hester and Dimmesdale are in the forest when they decide to leave town together there's a moment when Dimmesdale realizes his love for Hester: "'Do I feel joy again?' cried he, wondering at himself. 'Methought the germ of it was dead in me! O Hester, thou art my better angel! I seem to have flung myself--sick, sin-stained, and sorrow-blackened--down upon these forest leaves, and to have risen up all made anew, and with new powers to glorify Him that hath been merciful! This is already the better life!'" (560). This passage made me consider whether or not Hester could function as a religious symbol throughout the novel. It is clear that she represents sinning against her own religion and breaking the rules of her Puritan society; however, the fact that Dimmesdale calls her an angel puts her on a higher religious pedestal than I ever previously considered her.

Trying to find other evidence of Hester's holy affiliation was relatively difficult, mostly due to the density of description throughout the novel, but I started simply by looking at the first description of the scarlet letter, which seems to set her apart from everyone else: "That SCARLET LETTER, so fantastically embroidered and illuminated upon her bosom. It had the effect of a spell, taking her out of the ordinary relations with humanity, and inclosing her in a sphere by herself" (480). Whether this description means to sound godly, it most definitely alienates her from the average townsperson of Salem. Although the scarlet letter is meant to pull her down to a more devilish appearance in this passage it seems to raise her above everyone else in a heavenly sense.

Another instance where it could be argued that Hester has some connection to a higher religious power is when the scarlet A appears in the sky. I'm not sure why Hawthorne would connect Hester with a higher Godly power, but maybe it was to question how much of a sin she really committed, and that she was (even if not in a holy sense) superior to the rest of her town.

The Inhumanity of Pearl

Pearl, from the very beginning, is described in terms relating to nature or as a mystical and otherworldly being. Her "wild" nature which is described as being "like a floating sea-bird, on the long heaves and swells of sound." All of this combines to make Pearl seem to others as possessing a "shadowy and intangible quality." This creates a stark distinction between Pearl and all the Puritans, even estranging her from her mother. Everyone cannot truly view Pearl as a person because of the circumstances of her conception. It is not until the very end of the Scarlet Letter that the opinions of the townspeople change. Once Pearl inherits the fortune, the American obsession with wealth is shown as the townspeople warm to her slightly. But even then she is not viewed as being human. Only when considering what had happened to Pearl is her humanity bestowed. The belief that allowed Pearl to be seen as human is the belief that girl children are wild and must, as it is supposed happened to Pearl "subdued, and made capable of a woman's gentle happiness." This makes it possible then, that Pearl's being female is at least in part of what allows her to see through people's facades and justify her elfish spirit. Femaleness and ideal femininity in the Scarlet Letter defines not only Hester, but also Pearl. However, because Hester removes Pearl to the cottage by the sea, Pearl is able to live outside of the definition which so greatly impacted the life of Hester. Pearl's inability to conform to the Puritan ideal of feminitiy results in the townspeople viewing Pearl as inhuman.

The novel as a symbol

I first read The Scarlet Letter during my freshmen year of high school, and rereading it for the second time definitely elicited a different response. Perhaps it was because I initially read it at such a young age and wasn't able to fully comprehend the meaning of the work, but this time around, I found myself particularly frustrated with the attitudes of the townspeople. The fact that Hester is under "this intense consciousness of being the object of severe and universal observation" for her actions frustrated me not only because of its unnecessary exaggeration, but also because something like this could still happen today (483). The scarlet letter becomes a part of Hester's identity, and the people around her begin to define her by it. Hawthorne writes, "over her grave, the infamy that she must carry thither would be her only monument" (494). I found myself angered by quotes like this, along with the idea that "man had marked this woman's sin by a scarlet letter, which had such potent and disastrous efficacy that no human sympathy could reach her, save it were sinful like herself" (499). There is clear patriarchal dominance over Hester and her whole life and identity is altered because of the scarlet letter, and though Hester eventually surpasses what was supposed to be a punishment for her sins, the close-minded ideology of the townspeople still angered me. This clearly seems to be Hawthorne's intention in writing the novel, and in adding to the discussion about symbols, the novel itself can serve as a symbol of the in gender disparities in society. Through the irritated responses of the readers, the novel represents feminist frustration in society, even still today.

Why Not Leave Boston?

Upon the city's discovery of her adultery, Hester Prynne is sentenced to three hours of humiliation in the town square, and a lifetime of it with the Bostonian people. While reading the story, I couldn't stop wondering why Hester didn't just leave — I certainly would have wanted to. She doesn't have many true friends or family ties besides Pearl; Chillingworth is cruel throughout and Dimmesdale only shows his loyalty to Pearl and Hester after many years. Hester's dress-making ability would have enabled her to provide for herself anywhere. 

Hester's decision not to leave Boston speaks to her courage and integrity as a character. Her willingness to accept her punishment shows repentance, even though she knows she could not have been happy with Chillingworth. She could have decided only to wear the "A" in public and go without it at home, but does not; Pearl cannot even recognize her mother without it. Hester also redeems herself so much that townspeople begin to see the "A" as standing for "able". Through the brave choice to face her punishment, Hester proves herself a (rare) 17th century, female hero. 

Hawthorne's Use of Symbols

As we began discussing in Thursday's class, Hawthorne really wants to make sure his readers pick up on his use of symbols. As I continued reading The Scarlet Letter, I kept wondering why he so blatantly announces when a symbol appears within the novel. Something we discussed in my creative writing class this semester is the importance of letting your reader figure things like symbolism, themes, etc. out on his/her own. It "makes the reader feel smart" when she recognizes a significant piece of the "literary puzzle" that is a novel or short story. Taking that power away from the reader can may insult or bore her.

And yet, Hawthorne's novel has remained popular for years despite his disregard for the writer/reader relationship. Why don't we care that he makes his symbols so painfully obvious? Why did he decide to identify them so explicitly in the first place?

A theory I have is that Hawthorne really didn't trust his audience. Based on what Onno told us about Hawthorne in class on Thursday, he definitely seems to have held himself in high regard. I wonder if he thought his symbols were so clever, so intelligent that he figured he should make them all 100% clear so that no reader would miss how brilliant he was. This idea reminded me of Cooper using the epigraphs from writers like Shakespeare to illustrate that he was a "serious writer" himself.

Fascination with the Face; Poe's and Hawthorne's Attention to Facial Details

Reading through even the first few chapters of Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, one quickly is able to identify strong parallels between Hawthorne's style and tendencies and those of Edgar Allan Poe (it's no wonder the two of them vie for the same short story readers). One of the most prominent similarities that I have remarked is the attention both authors pay to the human face and the various facial expressions and changes that it undergoes.

Poe is seemingly obsessed with the face and eyes, as we see on numerous occasions throughout several of his short stories. In "Ligeia", he watches Rowena's face closely as she moves back and forth between life and death: "There was now a partial glow upon the forehead, upon the cheek and throat- a perceptible warmth pervaded the whole frame...Suddenly, the colour fled, the pulsation ceased, the lips resumed the expression of the dead..." (Poe 652-653). Later on in the story, he still analyzes the woman's mouth, chin, dimples, and other facial features.

Hawthorne has a similar focus on the face and its features. As we watch Hester emerge from the dark prison with Pearl gripped at her bosom, "she took the baby on her arm, and, with a burning blush, and yet a haughty smile, and a glance that would not be abashed, looked around at her townspeople and neighbors" (Hawthorne 480). Once again, we notice this close analysis and focus on the human face. This motif runs throughout The Scarlet Letter, especially when it comes to characterizing and portraying Pearl. Hawthorne describes the "peculiar smiles" and "the freakish, elvish cast" of her eyes, for example (Hawthorne 503).

Overall, as we continue to experience more of these 19th Century works, it is always interesting to see how the texts have evolved but also how the writers have influenced each other's works and styles.

The Leech

Chillingworth is referred to as "the leech" because he is a doctor and leeches were used as a form of medicine. Leeches latch on to the skin and suck blood out, which we know today, often had a negative effect on patients. This nickname of the leech represents a deeper look at Chillingworth and his effect on the minister, Hester and Pearl.
Upon seeing Hester and her baby on the scaffold in the center of town, Chillingworth is so infuriated that he remains in Boston to seek for revenge. He clings to the town and to his hope for revenge. He "sucks blood" or sucks life from them in his angry pursuits to hurt them.
Chillingworth's relationship with Dimmesdale depicts him perfectly as a "leech". Just as leeches "suck blood" in the hopes of medically healing someone, Chillingworth "attached himself to him as a parishioner, and sought to win a friendly regard and confidence from his naturally reserved sensibility. He expressed great alarm at his pastor's state of health, but was anxious to attempt the cure" (517). The two go on to live together as a way of searching for Dimmesdale's cure which only leads to hurting Dimmesdale. The narrator comments on that this led to Dimmesdale being "haunted by Satan himself, or Satan's emissary, in the guise of old Roger Chillingworth" (521).

A surprising narrator

My high school somehow forgot to teach The Scarlet Letter but it is nonetheless one of those novels so often alluded to and referenced that I felt like I had a sense of it. I expected many of the symbols, like Pearl and the rosebush and of course the letter itself. One thing that I did not expect, however, was the narrator's tone. His commentary and insights struck me as unexpectedly modern. The depiction of hypocritical male religious leaders belies the narrator's clear-sighted view of them, and of the unfairness of Puritan society. 

Editing History

As Hawthorne tells us in the Custom House chapter, the story of The Scarlet Letter came from papers recording the actual historical events of the situation. He is not the first author to take history and make novels out of it. Sir Walter Scott had done the same thing in his novel The Heart of Midlothian. In it Scott weaves together a few tales of Scottish history, including the trial of a “sinful” woman who not only was pregnant and unmarried, but had supposedly killed the child. (The historical story follows her sister, who went all the way to London to receive a royal pardon on her behalf.)

There’s one very memorable thing that Scott did with his retelling; his endings for the characters were very different from the historical facts. Notably in the novel, the girl who had once sinned now lived a life of misfortunes that followed one after another. Her historical counterpart, however, lived a relatively happy life after she was pardoned. This revised edition of history follows with a familiar trope: the good have happy endings, the bad have less than stellar ones.

Already in the first few pages, Hawthorne has made me feel more for Hester than I had felt for Scott’s “fallen maiden.” In the first few pages our sympathy instantly lies with Hester, who is the woman who has sinned. While she does not admit who is Pearl’s father and is not looking for the community’s version of “saving,” I’m not made to think that she deserves the punishment. Compared to some of the community, Hester is a heroine.

I have never read the novel before, but I am interested in seeing how Hawthorne could rewrite history. Just because the historical figure lived a mediocre life does not mean his character is bound to the same standards. If he wants to reward Hester for everything she went through at the end of the novel, there’s nothing that can really stop him. He could also punish the town for what they’ve done to Hester. While there is a few more constrictions on that (as people may look into more historical accuracy on a place that is still standing), he is allowed to do so. Novels have been a way to convey the idea that the good shall be rewarded, the bad shall be punished. But Hawthorne is obviously not one for conventions. So I can’t wait to see how the ending shall play out.

Significance of Pearl

     Our brief discussion in class today about Pearl's role got me thinking much about how I previously viewed her and now. I remember writing an essay  focusing on the significance of Pearl, although I can't remember the exact focus, but I feel like there's much more to her that I may have missed. At first she's viewed as a consequence, the result of her mothers sin, but as we know Hawthorne hands us exactly what he wants us to perceive. I think he may portray Pearl as so much of a consequence at first in order for us to see her significance when she gets older and plays more of an active role.

     Once the secret is out about who the father is Pearl seems to have a weight lifted off her shoulders. The townspeople don’t label her as much as possessing demon-like qualities and her role in revealing the truth behind Dimmesdale and also helping her mother break away from Puritan society are exemplified. Pearl may be a constant reminder of what Hester did, but she's also a constant reminder of what Hester needs to continue to stand for.

Shifting Realities in The Scarlet Letter

In concluding "The Custom House," the unnamed narrator and eventual (purported) writer of The Scarlet Letter observes, after a drawn out, at times baffling expository sequence, that his time at the custom house is vanished, and that he is now "a citizen of somewhere else" (476). The same might be said of Hester Prynne. She is effectively cast out of society, forced to bear a prominent mark of shame for the rest of her days. There is, however, a shift that occurs in this branding. Though she still bears the humiliation of displaying her adultery at all times, she also manages to, through impressive composure and poise, maintain a dignity that transforms her burden into something honorable. Indeed, Prynne's life after being released from prison is likened to gaining citizenship in "the forestland," a place not entirely positive in tone but not entirely negative either (494). It is here, in this new citizenship, that she further shifts the bonds of her estrangement. The sewn, scarlet "A" becomes a mark of her prowess with a needle, the very object that is meant to isolate her enticing customers, namely "the dames of a court" looking to add fine needlework to their "fabrics of silk and gold" (495). Prynne, whether she means to or not, converts the ignominious to a source of strength.

Restraint in Douglass' Narrative

In Literature, a narrator will often restrain certain details for the aesthetic effect of that restraint, how it adds to the story or enforces a theme. Douglass plays with restraint in a very interesting way, but one which does not immediately strike me as "literary." His use of restraint stems from his purpose for writing. He writes explicitly to impact society. He wants to demonstrate the facts of slavery to those who have yet to determine a stance on the issue; he wants to show the American public what a Black writer, and former slave, is capable of; and he wants to articulate freedom to those who take it for granted.

On page 1228, Douglass explains that he "would keep the merciless slaveholder profoundly ignorant of the means of flight adopted by the slave" in order to "render the tyrant no aid" in recapturing their runaway slaves. Earlier in the narrative, he keeps unrevealed the names of the White children who helped him learn to read so that they do not receive blame or chastisement from the White community for helping him on his quest for freedom.

These examples demonstrate that the practical effects of his writing motivated him to restrain certain details. This consistently reinforces its genre as historical, rather than literary, writing; however the themes and motifs that he crafts and the narrative voice he captures establish the work as literary. I think one of the work's most intriguing aspects is how it vacillates between these two genres, as if calling into question the distinction at all.

What led to Douglass's resistive attitude?

In class on Tuesday we spoke about the influence that literacy and writing both have on Douglass’s life. Literacy, however, in Douglass’s life, correlates directly with a resistive attitude that he develops over time. From the moment Mr. Auld explains to his wife that teaching a slave to read would ‘ruin’ him or make him ‘unfit’ to be a slave, Douglass becomes determined to learn these skills. However, Douglass’s resistive demeanor shines exceedingly bright when Mr. Auld states that learning to read and write would be extremely beneficial to slaves, which is precisely why it should remain an exclusively white activity. Mr. Auld’s ignorant philosophy enrages Douglass and as a result, he seeks to oppose his master by any means necessary. As Douglass tells, “the argument which he so warmly urged, against my learning to read, only served to inspire me with a desire and determination to learn” (1197). Auld’s ignorance fuels Douglass’s desire to learn and he is relentless in his efforts. He exchanges food with lessons from poor white children and over time successfully learns to read.

Once Douglass is able to read, however, he becomes more exposed to abolitionist writing. As a result, Douglass feels angry and increasingly resistive. Though his first reaction after reading certain anti-slavery writing is sorrow, Douglass quickly shifts his thinking to something productive. It becomes clear that Douglass is becoming increasingly resistive when he secretly opens his Sabbath schools. By doing so, Douglass is teaching other slaves to read, thus liberating their minds. Further, after developing reading and writing skills, Douglass begins to resist certain staples of slavery. For example, when working for Mr. Covey, Douglass is tired of being whipped to he rebels and fights back against his new master. From this moment on, Covey stops whipping Douglass altogether. Some may accredit Douglass’s resistive attitude to his increased intellect that directly influences his keen ability to get his way. However, I would argue that both his literacy and his desire to oppose his white masters equally attribute to his resistive attitude. He may never have been able to free himself were it not for his immense will power. Douglass evenly accredits his freedom to Mrs. Auld for helping him learn to read and Mr. Auld for giving him the motivation to resist. Inevitably, both these masters do contribute to Douglass’s eventual freedom.