My first instinct is to say "no," and make it an extremely emphatic one. However, the book is definitely a work of art if it can elicit such a strong response from the reader and still manage to raise important issues present in the culture of the times. It's no wonder that women have had such a difficult time trying to find their own ground. The belief system that stands against them has roots in civilizations that cropped up thousands of years ago. And it looks like absolutely nothing had changed at the time the book was written. Although, it does seem that Hawthorne was slightly ahead of his time when he writes "...for the accumulating days, and added years, would pile up their misery upon the heap of shame. Throughout them all, giving up her individuality, she would become the general symbol at which the preacher and moralist might point..." (54). There's almost a touch of sympathy for Hester as the author and the reader both realize that her coming life will be filled with dread.
On a completely different note, it is slightly difficult to read the book because the writing is so dense. Talk about your run on sentences....especially when Hawthorne describes Hester's talent with sewing and needlepoint. For the length of two pages, he talks about nothing except for an inch of lace. Okay, so I exaggerate a little, but still. The only saving grace is that the language used is artistic, archaic as it may be for our time. For instance, "He wore a dark feather in his hat, a border of embroidery on his cloak, and a black velvet tunic beneath; a gentleman advanced in years, and with a hard experience written in his wrinkles" (44). Despcriptive without being flowery.
There's a joy hidden in reading a language that was set aside for art once upon ago, e.g. the Elizabethan age. Now that I think about it, the language hasn't changed much from then to the time period of the novel. Neither has the technique. The first three pages of the book are taken up with nothing except the description of the setting. While I'm at it, I have to say its nice to read a book written in first person narrative after a long long time.
All in all, its a refreshing change. I'm trying very hard to not evaluate the book based on my emotional reactions, especially where Hester's torture and subsequent treatment is concerned. No, she definitely did not sin alone....her husband, her lover and the society she lived in were a huge part of the collective sin taking place. I wonder who stepped in and told the Puritans that it wasn't up to them to judge morality, especially when they never took a look at their own. It'll be interesting to project the theme of this book into contemporary society.
Posted by NehaBawa at September 11, 2005 03:28 PM | TrackBacki do, i do, i do agree with you! i also thought that hester did not sin alone, and it really rather bothered me that she took all the balme when it takes two to tango. grr. maybe that is just tha rampant, raging feminist coming out in me, but i think that "he" should have been punished too. interesting point though---i would also really like to see this story told in a comtemporary view...i think it would be VERY different.
Posted by: lauren etling at September 11, 2005 09:43 PMAlthough you may be right that she did not sin alone, it seems to me that instead of putting the blame on the shoulders of someone else, she decides to take her own punishment. She was wrong, and she took it head on. The one thing that I believe Hawthorne was trying to prove is that Hester made a mistake, but it still a good-hearted person overall. Just like all of us. All of us are sinners (not necessarily born sinners) but we are still good people. Just because people make mistakes, it does not mean that they are bad people.
Posted by: Jason Pugh at September 12, 2005 12:44 PMShe might have made a mistake, J, but she certainly didn't get there all by herself. Takes two to tango my friend. Always takes two.
Posted by: Neha at September 12, 2005 01:56 PMI've gotta agree with Jason. Yes it does take two people to do a sin as such, it takes a very strong person to take all of the blame on themselves and not point out the other person's guilt. She is allowing the other person the chance to step forward and admit their guilt, she's not pointing the finger.
Posted by: Liz at September 12, 2005 02:49 PMGood call. I guess I read the comment differently.
Posted by: Neha at September 12, 2005 05:25 PMHester did not sin alone. In fact there are three sinners in the book and all of them had different crimes--a crime of passion, a crime of purpose, and a crime of principle. You'll see (if you haven't already read the book) that one and only one comes out of this alive.
Hawthorne really brings out some transcendentalist views in the Scarlet Letter, although the Blithedale Romance satirizes these views. Hester transcends her iniquities by the end. I love the Scarlet Letter. It is packed with so much for how short a novel it really is. Hope everyone's enjoying it!
Posted by: Evan at September 12, 2005 10:30 PMI see that your original thoughts of her "lone sinning" have been addressed, but I agree with the "two to tango" philosophy. I also find it fascinating that she is so determined to keep it her lover a secret. Most people would probably want to share the blame for this situation. Truthfully, it is always better to be in pain with someone else, than alone. Additionally, I agree with your interest in the language. Reading it catches your eyes and heart to find the deeper meaning behind Hawthorne's words.
Posted by: Meredith at September 13, 2005 10:44 AMAlways a pleasure to hear from you Evan. There's always an insight that none of us seems to get at. But, for the purpose of enlightening the rest of us, would you care to explain Transcendentalism and the Blithedale Romance?
Meredith, you're right that pain is halved when shared, but there's only so much that we can rely on emotion when we're reading literature. At some point, we'll have to begin dissecting at a deeper level. Aside from the obvious hypocricy of the society, did you notice any other issues worth talking about?
Posted by: Neha at September 13, 2005 01:52 PM