Take a photo of a barcode or cover
hoobabi 's review for:
The Scarlet Letter
by Nathaniel Hawthorne
Ignore the introduction entitled 'The Courthouse' and ignore the comments of irate highschoolers. Yea, it is indeed possible to like this book.
Do not expect the liberal hogwash you saw in the film with the admittedly very good Gary Oldman (while Demi Moore tries to fool us she's from anywhere else other than the US). I was partly disappointed, or at least surprised, that the book did not at least contain some of the better themes of liberal thinking found in the film; say themes of feminism or at least signs of independent thought.
Firstly, both Hester Prynne and the Revered Dimmesdale are overcome by an extremely burdensome, gnawing guilt. The way Hawthorne twines their stories of guilt occasionally feels too artificial, as though he painted too sensitive, too detailed a picture of the human psyche. Neither Hester nor Dimmesdale has any sense of independence or a sense of morality beyond the (obviously) arbitrary morality of the Puritans. It is only later on that Hester realises the arbitrariness of her position not only as the bearer of the Scarlet Letter but also of her inferior social position as a woman.
This sense that Hawthorne is painting you an almost nauseatingly detailed portrait of consciousness forms the largest part of the book. If you get into the novel without any prior knowledge of the story and without reading the back description, then I would expect the reader would be a bit confused finding a long series of character studies without much hint as to what the relation is between them. If the book kept on to this course for several other chapters, I think I would have abandoned it eventually, yet of course it does not, and thankfully Hawthorne manages to do a great deal with very little space. This economy with words, with very little sense of sacrifice (a tad more backstory was wanting), is one of the more admirable qualities of the novel.
Hawthorne's tone and intent is at times very difficult to decipher; I expected a radical and unabashed critique of Puritan society but instead I find comment on Puritan society that is occasionally almost emphatic while the main characters whom I expected would represent the last bastion of individual, independent and critical thought are two withering creatures with very little moral strength. The fact that Hawthorne himself at times sounds as moralistic as the Puritans (see his descriptions of 'the witch' or his long descriptions of both Dimmesdale's and Hester's guilt).
On the other hand one can interpret Hawthorne's unforgiving cruelty to both Hester and Dimmesdale because the society itself was cruel and unforgiving; I hope that his intent was that in presenting a bleak picture of society we ourselves can at least learn to ease whatever cruelty our society probably inevitably inflicts. Perhaps Hawthorne was all too concerned with the prudishness of his own Victorian society. Undoubtedly this latter interpretation has some value since we know that Hawthorne, descended from Puritan society never quite forgave himself for the harshness of his forefathers. Yet also it taught him a great deal about guilt; something that he undoubtedly applied to the very emphatic yet weak Dimmesdale. Perhaps it is also worth noting that Hawthorne shows us a decadent civilisation at the very borders of civilisation: the wilderness of the forest and the 'Indians' only helps to highlight how arbitrary, senseless and indeed meaningless human justice/cruelty can be.
What wins this novel the extra star is how everything falls together, or falls to pieces, in the end. Each and every infinitesimal note about the personal consciences of the three main characters is used to build up a dramatic, yet not artificial, end. How all this can be irrelevant to contemporary times, I cannot fathom.
Do not expect the liberal hogwash you saw in the film with the admittedly very good Gary Oldman (while Demi Moore tries to fool us she's from anywhere else other than the US). I was partly disappointed, or at least surprised, that the book did not at least contain some of the better themes of liberal thinking found in the film; say themes of feminism or at least signs of independent thought.
Firstly, both Hester Prynne and the Revered Dimmesdale are overcome by an extremely burdensome, gnawing guilt. The way Hawthorne twines their stories of guilt occasionally feels too artificial, as though he painted too sensitive, too detailed a picture of the human psyche. Neither Hester nor Dimmesdale has any sense of independence or a sense of morality beyond the (obviously) arbitrary morality of the Puritans. It is only later on that Hester realises the arbitrariness of her position not only as the bearer of the Scarlet Letter but also of her inferior social position as a woman.
This sense that Hawthorne is painting you an almost nauseatingly detailed portrait of consciousness forms the largest part of the book. If you get into the novel without any prior knowledge of the story and without reading the back description, then I would expect the reader would be a bit confused finding a long series of character studies without much hint as to what the relation is between them. If the book kept on to this course for several other chapters, I think I would have abandoned it eventually, yet of course it does not, and thankfully Hawthorne manages to do a great deal with very little space. This economy with words, with very little sense of sacrifice (a tad more backstory was wanting), is one of the more admirable qualities of the novel.
Hawthorne's tone and intent is at times very difficult to decipher; I expected a radical and unabashed critique of Puritan society but instead I find comment on Puritan society that is occasionally almost emphatic while the main characters whom I expected would represent the last bastion of individual, independent and critical thought are two withering creatures with very little moral strength. The fact that Hawthorne himself at times sounds as moralistic as the Puritans (see his descriptions of 'the witch' or his long descriptions of both Dimmesdale's and Hester's guilt).
On the other hand one can interpret Hawthorne's unforgiving cruelty to both Hester and Dimmesdale because the society itself was cruel and unforgiving; I hope that his intent was that in presenting a bleak picture of society we ourselves can at least learn to ease whatever cruelty our society probably inevitably inflicts. Perhaps Hawthorne was all too concerned with the prudishness of his own Victorian society. Undoubtedly this latter interpretation has some value since we know that Hawthorne, descended from Puritan society never quite forgave himself for the harshness of his forefathers. Yet also it taught him a great deal about guilt; something that he undoubtedly applied to the very emphatic yet weak Dimmesdale. Perhaps it is also worth noting that Hawthorne shows us a decadent civilisation at the very borders of civilisation: the wilderness of the forest and the 'Indians' only helps to highlight how arbitrary, senseless and indeed meaningless human justice/cruelty can be.
What wins this novel the extra star is how everything falls together, or falls to pieces, in the end. Each and every infinitesimal note about the personal consciences of the three main characters is used to build up a dramatic, yet not artificial, end. How all this can be irrelevant to contemporary times, I cannot fathom.